After Tuesday's class discussion about cyborgs, I couldn't stop thinking about the connection between cyborgs and corporate settings. I know that this particular concept is rather small compared to all of the other ideas we have been discussing about cyborgs. However without the connection amongst cyborgs and corporate settings, cyborgs would not exist in my opinion. It is these "corporate settings" that provide the financial means in order to create and maintain cyborgs. If it is corporate settings who put up the cash to support the idea of cyborg production, then aren't corporate settings the ones responsible for the creation of cyborgs. I know that scientist are the ones who physically build the cyborgs, but without the financial means to build them a scientist's role in creating cyborgs are just ideas down on paper. Now I don't mean to say that scientist's aren't important in creating cyborgs. However without the role of money to help aid in the creation of cyborgs, scientist's hands are pretty much tied.
With my new found curiosity about corporate settings funding cyborgs, I began surfing the net and looking for material that discussed this in detail. To my surprise I could hardly find any material on this subject matter. Instead I found several articles about how one day people want to become cyborgs. This one particular article that I found on CNN.com through Google.com entitled, "Why life as a cyborg is better," really caught my attention. This article goes right into context with the discussion that we have been having in class about what a cyborg is. The thing that really stuck out about this article is the comment made about the man this article is about Steve Mann. Mann is a person who has dreams of enhancing human capabilities with computer intelligence. In the article it states, "if it sounds a bit creepy, consider this: Mann became a cyborg so he could be more human ("Why life as a cyborg is better" 2)".
After reading this I thought to myself, "what". Why would someone want to become a cyborg in order to be more human? Isn't this statement contradicting itself? Then I recalled Chris Hables Gray comment that I read in his article "Cyborgology" about cyborgs as members of society. Gray states, "there are many actual cyborgs among us in society. Anyone with an artificial organ, limb or supplement (like a pacemaker), anyone programmed to resist disease (immunized) or drugged to think/behave/feel better (psychopharmacology) is technically a cyborg" (2). This is a true statement. Not only for the dreams of people like Steve Mann, but for the everyday common person like myself.
Whether I want to admit it or not, I am too a cyborg in society. Just this past week I took to different kinds of medication to ward off a cold to "feel" better. In Gray's language I am a cyborg. If this is the case then we have baby cyborgs being born into the world everyday on account of artificial insemination. As well as little children & adult cyborgs walking around who have been immunized. It is our desire to be unique, happy, & healthy individuals that causes us to take on cyborg like characteristics as Gray states. So should we then be calling ourselves "cyborg beings" instead of "human beings"?
With my new found curiosity about corporate settings funding cyborgs, I began surfing the net and looking for material that discussed this in detail. To my surprise I could hardly find any material on this subject matter. Instead I found several articles about how one day people want to become cyborgs. This one particular article that I found on CNN.com through Google.com entitled, "Why life as a cyborg is better," really caught my attention. This article goes right into context with the discussion that we have been having in class about what a cyborg is. The thing that really stuck out about this article is the comment made about the man this article is about Steve Mann. Mann is a person who has dreams of enhancing human capabilities with computer intelligence. In the article it states, "if it sounds a bit creepy, consider this: Mann became a cyborg so he could be more human ("Why life as a cyborg is better" 2)".
After reading this I thought to myself, "what". Why would someone want to become a cyborg in order to be more human? Isn't this statement contradicting itself? Then I recalled Chris Hables Gray comment that I read in his article "Cyborgology" about cyborgs as members of society. Gray states, "there are many actual cyborgs among us in society. Anyone with an artificial organ, limb or supplement (like a pacemaker), anyone programmed to resist disease (immunized) or drugged to think/behave/feel better (psychopharmacology) is technically a cyborg" (2). This is a true statement. Not only for the dreams of people like Steve Mann, but for the everyday common person like myself.
Whether I want to admit it or not, I am too a cyborg in society. Just this past week I took to different kinds of medication to ward off a cold to "feel" better. In Gray's language I am a cyborg. If this is the case then we have baby cyborgs being born into the world everyday on account of artificial insemination. As well as little children & adult cyborgs walking around who have been immunized. It is our desire to be unique, happy, & healthy individuals that causes us to take on cyborg like characteristics as Gray states. So should we then be calling ourselves "cyborg beings" instead of "human beings"?
Works Cited
Gray, Chris Hables. "Cyborgology". 2.
"Why life as a cyborg is better." CNN.com. 14 January 2004. The Associated Press. 15 Feb 2007. 2.
"Why life as a cyborg is better." CNN.com. 14 January 2004. The Associated Press. 15 Feb 2007
2 comments:
Dr.Lucas,
I was unsure of how to cite Gray's piece in my Work Cited. I did however give him credit in my blog as well as cite it with the information that I had in my Works Cited. Could you tell me whether or not this is ok?
This font is very difficult to read, Shirmelia. Be sure to proofread for typos and minor grammatical errors.
It seems like you're most interested in what Haraway called the "informatics of domination" and the role that economics plays.
Some interesting thoughts.
Post a Comment