Print

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

[Dominique]

Scaryfairy, I really liked your idea about designer babies. To clarify I do think themselves would be born as cyborgs as technology has tampered with their appearance on a whole different level that is currently available to us. I do not know much about them, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere you can already decide what eye colour your baby can have. Yet again though this enables the richer and perhaps materialistic and vain population of the world to spend money on a cosmetic procedure that is really unecessary, maybe even putting the newborn's life at risk due to selfish reasoning. This puts into perspective our moral ethics and beliefs, and ultimately it makes us question to what extent can we 'play' God and if so who do we trust to 'be' God? The whole concept is fascinating and disturbing at the same time.

[HSB]

Whilst reading 'Cyborgology', it is clear that the concept of cyber technologies has caused a great deal of controversy. Cyborgs can have multiple definitions, there is no clear simple definition of what it is. As time goes on, technology is becoming more and more advanced. I find it fascinating to think when will technology reach a peak? When will the distinction between humans and robots fade, as we are constantly merging into one.. 

[Artamis]

In some replies there was a discussion about the categorization of cyborgs versus humans, versus machines. I remember speaking in class about it, but more with the idea of the building of a new class/race system. That the ones with money and therefore access to become a cyborg, could start to distinct themselves from those humans, who cannot afford it. It could therefore potentially happen that the lesser ones, which are fully 'human' - the definition of fully human stands to argue - could become a lower class. What do you think ? 

[Sammy]

The concept of cyborgs has been contested by many studying cyborgology. Gray defines it as a symbiosis of something natural and artificial. It's a non-traditional concept of identity, so it is no surprise that it has attracted questions about ethics. So yes, it may create ethical dilemmas for those that are against this definition of a cyborg raised by Gray. For instance, they may feel that it questions the existence of God, since the idea given by the concept of cyborgs is that we are not fully human. Thus, the concept of cyborgs is not clearly defined. 

[gadams]

I have had plastic surgery, does that mean i am a cyborg? In terms of Haraway's definition of a cyborg then yes I am. Her definition is the melding of the mechanic and the organic - I had plastic surgery to change my appearance, through technology I was able to do this. I understand her point however I don't feel I am cyborg but then again if I am a cyborg then everyone else is in there own way. You break an arm, it gets fixed your a cyborg.

[Fúnke]

Before reading the article on cyborg’s I never really associated the concept with much else other than your stereotypical sci-fi half-human/half-machine sort of thing. But through the reading it’s opened my eyes up in regards to the characteristics of what could be considered a cyborg. I never for the life of me thought immunisation was a potentially contributing factor to being considered a cyborg, of sorts.

Out of all the readings I’ve found this to be the most interesting and thought provoking. Whilst reading it I did think about glasses and whether they were the trait of a cyborg, and obviously Gray et al cover this concept distinctly saying no in terms of it being a cyborg characteristic. I can’t help but think though that even with the difficulty in defining what a cyborg is, that things like glasses in which we use to improve or get us back to a state and ability where we once were (having better eyesight) that glasses should maybe considered to be a cyborgian (is that even a word) trait? From my understanding of the reading, and this might be wrong, but was it the fact that before the concept of a cyborg is fairly new that things that come before it can’t be considered cyborg? Like I said, I might be totally off the mark, but that’s the impression I got from the reading.

[ellip]

This reading proved challenging even though it was rated as 'easy'. I guess ut us trying to say cyborgs can be anything from that enhances the human performance, from a prosthetic for the leg to antibiotics for an infection. In my opinion, cyborgs are a way of making humans invisible. Look at that movie Limitless (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THE_hhk1Gzc) where the character was made into a superhuman by ingesting a simple pill. That is just a greater metaphor for all the various methods scientists are trying to develop to prolong life. It can be said that we are becoming cyborgs to rectify the problems becoming a cyborg caused in the first place.

[mlp1984]

I hadn’t thought of the reading on the subject of Cyborgs as having the potential to ‘dismantle traditional ideas… and help combat ‘the discontinuous mind’.  If anything I had the opposite interpretation.  I interpreted the discussion on where one might draw the boundary between what is organic (100% au-naturel) and what is constituted a cyborg, to be consistent with the ‘discontinuous mind’ that we inhabit.  To me it demonstrated a compulsion to distinguish between the two.  To the ‘discontinuous mind… there can be no half measures…’ (Dawkins, p.82).

This said, I can fully appreciate the benefits of exploring the subject further.  Fair and equal treatment is a more likely in circumstances where a consistent system or approach has been established, to frequently occurring ethical issues.  This subject is however, as far as I am aware, in its infancy.  Recent examples, that have already been provided, include the Oscar Pistorius the runner and the ethical dilemma posed by Gray et al. (1995, pp.12-13).  Perhaps, in time, as technology plays a larger and larger role in our lives, the question as to whether Oscar is ‘normal’ or not will become less relevant.  If you agree with Gray et al.’s arguably all-encompassing definition of a cyborg that includes ‘anyone reprogrammed to resist disease (immunized) or drugged to think/behave/feel better…), are we not all somewhere on the continuum (organic-cyborg)?

[adubz]

I loved the reading, overly enthusiastic but it was so interesting. (Well not so much the reading but everything i've read since.) I found an article in my explorations about understanding transhumans in respect to a few characters from The Avengers.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03/17/let-the-avengers-help-you-understand-your-fears-about-transhumanism/

Although not academic in anyway it really makes the Cyborg/Transhuman idea exciting. It covers aspects of readings ive been using to understand that Cybrogs are not simply technologically advanced human beings but those with a power to influence and change opinions. Even with Oscar Pistorius hes alteration is not a limiting factor but because of it he causes debates and challenges the core idea of things like sport. If he did not have the prosthetics he obviously would not be able to compete but he would be limited to being wheelchair bound. Is it fair to do that? He has an advantage over human beings with no where near his ability but when it comes down to it unless cybernetic legs are created with the exact same working ability as organic legs then can't really critique him for doing the best he can with what he's got.
Like the link I posted says think of them as Superheroes!! :)

[AndreaLo]

Like many others I found the reading quite difficult to understand and the idea of the cyborg itself to be very abstract. Whilst I don't consider the term 'cyborg' to have any immediate negative connotations, I still find it to be a slightly odd and perhaps even controversial concept to brand a person with artificial limbs or organs to be one. But then again, as a poster mentioned earlier in the reading it is clear that there is no absolute definition for the term cyborg and as such it could be said that we can view it broadly as a term that describes anyone with an artificial extension to their being.

[Budgie]

I found this reading the most engaging, particularly because of how relevant it is for the age we live in. I found it really interesting to consider how Haraway believes we all already must be cyborgs if we've been through some sort of modification, whether for enhancement or reconfiguration purposes, etc. I also used to think that the concept of the Cyborg was merely the most extreme portrayals, such as those depicted in science fiction pop culture etc.
 It makes me wonder though to what extent are we considered cyborgs if for example, we have a few tattoos?  Where is the line drawn?

[missrager]

I actually really enjoyed this reading. It was an abstract concept, but also illuminated certain aspects of technological integration into human life. For instance, only after completing this reading did I realise how very much so humans aspire to constantly evolve. This is demonstrated in many mediums, such as superheroes in comics/tv/film and how game characters tend to always possess supernatural powers. We as humans consistently strive to employ technology to help us live more efficiently, be that through immunisation or plastic surgery.

[jaffacake]

Part cybernetic, part organism is what sets apart a cyborg from that of a robot and a human being. The first thought of the term reminds me of a character from a comic book, ‘The Teen Titans’, where a character is engaged in a life threatening accident and has his body morphed into half steel. The term is obviously loosely based, and any enhancement of the body can be termed as a cyborg…however, in real life, I am not sure if it has the same impact on my flatmate when she puts on her glasses to further enhance her vision. 

[Georgina.]

'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.'

I really liked this idea of challenging cyborg theory in terms of assissting humans. I think this shows well the complex issues that surround the subject, as you have said if the idea of medication and prosthesis is to enable supposedly 'disadvantaged' humans, then surely they will never really be normal anyway because of the enhancements they have been given. I'd find it interesting to see where the line for enhancement could be drawn in order for a person to be thought of as a cyborg in relation to the theory. I can see why a person with, say, a mechanical limb would be considerd as a cyborg, or say a glamour model with false 'assessts', and I can also in some ways see how a child on mood effecting medication can be seen as a cyborg. It was the idea of the medication that got me thinking about where to draw the line. A person can be offered chemical drugs in order to effect their mood (for example antidepressant drugs) however, more and more so, people are often being offered natural substances in order to assist thier mood instead of prescriptive drugs. For example St. Johns  Wort is a natural substance often recommended for people with minor depressive symptoms. Even thought the patient is taking a natural enchancer rather than an artifical one, their mood is still artifically enhanced. Does this then still make them a cyborg?