Nov 01 2009
My Heart Goes “Beep”
One of the more interesting concepts in machinist apocalyptic thought is that of the cyborg. Part man and part machine, the two species merge as the necessary yet incestuous lovechild of evolution. The existence of the cyborg is not truly questioned because we have yet to truly examine what a cyborg is. The stereotype that science fiction generates is Star Trek’s Borg—a mishmash of wires plugged into flesh, a product of the distant future that cannot yet possibly exist in our modern world.
Yet, cyborgs do exist and humanity is the parent. We have become cyborgs out of necessity. According to Dictionary.com, a cyborg is “a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device.” By that definition, anyone with a pacemaker in her chest is a cyborg. There also exists a growing trend of parents implanting tracking devices in their infant children in case the child is ever kidnapped; does this make the children cyborgs? The reality of the human robot is here.
However, we must ask ourselves several questions. The first is what we sacrifice for technology’s sake. With the reality of cyborgs comes concerns about the impending tide of technoppression. As Lee Quinby wrote in Millenial Seduction, “Programmed perfection does not just promise that electronic prosthetics will perfect life—it mandates it.” (134) As technology allows humanity to achieve more than is humanly possible, evolution dictates that we must reach for this or risk becoming obsolete.
At the risk of sounding like a bad joke, I ask whether we create technology, or does it create us? Have we lost ourselves in this pursuit, so much so that we create for the sake of creation, because we are compelled to for no other reason than to lose ourselves in the frenzy that comes with playing God? Are we truly building this great technology to further humanity’s interests or because we are competing with an imaginary rival whom we can never beat and thus, will never surrender to?
To my mind, it doesn’t make sense to be either for or against technology, but rather to continue asking ourselves what the consequences are of the technologies we use–and as Angela says, “use us,” in the sense that we are directed in certain ways once we have technological devices. Cell phones, for example, have directed users to check constantly for messages and often ignore the people they are around. But, much to my satisfaction, my corneal implant allows me to see what otherwise would be a blurred over world. There is no reason to assume that more is better (or growth in Kurzweil’s terms) but that doesn’t mean that we should shy away from trying to create more opportunities for people through technology.
So the questions I want to ask each time have to do with the practices of particular technologies and who is making them and deciding on how to use them. These questions entail investigating the extent to which some of those decisions have been made in accordance with racist and sexist views, as Jahneille points out. Sometimes the judgment seems pretty skewed–for example, finding out how to allow people to eat enormous amounts without caloric consequence strikes me as questionable in goal whereas finding ways to feed the starving people of the world seems far more worthy. Even the best decisions may have unintended consequences, so we need to continually place them under scrutiny–but democratically, rather than allowing a few people to make these decisions for everyone.
“Too much,” A, as I border on annoying repetition by saying, is all a matter of perspective.
For Ray K, who draws heavily on Vernor’s Sigularity article, it’s great!
If to his credit, though, in the context of this class, he isn’t apocalyptic.
Interesting video! While the possibility of superhuman feats is tempting, I wonder if it will become too much, as the Singularity article suggests. Also, I can’t help but think about that new Bruce Willis movie, Surrogate. (Great movie, by the way. Really blurs the line between identity and fantasy.) Has anyone else seen it?
Powerful and important questions, A.
I hear myself ask again and again – what is the end goal?
What are we striving for?
A more pragmatic question may be, why are we striving in these specific ways?
A fine thought experiment is to wonder if all of our current goals could be realized by technological aid, what would the world be like?
Would it be recognizable?
Would it be a world that you would want to live in?
The cyborg question is particularly effective, as it deals with what we are most intimate with – our bodies.
Check out this 10 minute TED video of Aimee Mullins:
She touches upon many of those fears – almost arrogantly I might add, in stark contrast to her TED talk 10 years ago, before her starring role in Barney’s “Cremaster”… (http://www.ted.com/talks/aimee_mullins_on_running.html) Her talk is strange though, because she is not advocating for more acceptance of those who are disabled as much as lauding her own nude form running along the beach. What is Mullins’ end goal? Would the talk have been more effective (towards what goal?) if Mullins’ had remained seated with her stumps on full display? These questions align with Quinby’s on pg 134 of MS. Is Mullins a consequence of programmed perfection?