Clark quotes Kevin Warwick in chapter 1 of “Natural Born Cyborgs” as saying: “I was born human. But this was an accident of fate - a condition merely of time and place. I believe it’s something we have the power to change.
This is a very interesting, though slightly pessimistic view of humanity. My first reaction was to question what was so wrong with humanity that we would rather change that fact and be cyborgs, which is implicated as clearly better. As I read on however, I discovered that Clark’s as well as Warwick’s opinion of cyborgs and our gradual and inevitable morph into them really depends on definition. As Clark acknowledges, his cat with a chip imbedded under his skin may not be considered “as much” of a cyborg as someone with a special hearing aid that connects directly to the brain stem. I will admit that I am much more willing to accept the positives of nonbiological devices improving humanity and turing us into cyborgs if they go deeper into the realm of “humanity.” The examples Clark uses to explain the extensive use of these nonbiological devices, pacemakers, chips, hearing aids, nerve implants, and more, demonstrate that the argument can be made just as easily for the other side as it can for Clark’s. I think this is important to realize as you are reading.
Also, as clark says, “We resonate with terror, excitement, or both to the idea of ever-deeper neural and bodily implants in part because we sense some rough-and-ready correlation between depth-of-interface and such transformative potentials”
I agree with this statement. It seems to me that he is saying that the grander the fix provided by the nonbiological device and the deeper it delves into what we see as the essences of humanity, the more likely we are to accept it. Clearly, the idea that those essences are fixable through human ‘technology’ will not sit easily with most at first because we are very set in our “belief that there is something absolutey special about the cognitive machinery that happense to be housed within the primitive bioinsulation of skin and skull.” However I agree with Clark in the fact that they may not be a valid belief, and is really one we should shy away from because we have proved time and time again that we can create certain technology that really does improve even that deepest sense of humanity: the brain. If we can manipulate the brain using nonbiological devices, I think Clark’s ideas of humans as natural born cyborgs are entirely feasible; it really depends on definition, and I think we, as humans, match that which Clark provides.
Jessica Podeschi | 12-Nov-06 at 12:23 am | Permalink
I would have to agree with Deni on this one. I immediately thought of the same thing when I read the Warwick quote. I wondered what was so bad about being human, but then I too realized that the definition of cyborg is the key to this entire book. Also, I would just like to add that Clark’s definition of good technology is also important. In chapter 5 when he said that we want technology to be like a shoe, in that we always use it to enhance our capacties and not the crutch, that we only use to replace the natural capacity of our leg, which is not enough. In that sense, we become the machines that complement us, just as they become a part of who we are. So, over time, we actually could be considered cyborgs, but I am not sure if I am sold on the “natural born” aspect.
Nkone Adu Dapaah | 13-Nov-06 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
i quiet didn’t agree with clark saying that we are cyborgs because we write with pen and pencils and wear glasses and all those things. technologies are there to help humans to do work more faster and effectively and humans become powerful and stronger through the use of technology.That doesn’t mean we are cyborgs, well i do agree that sometimes technology controls us and that is when we let it control our mind.
there was this article on NBC about a remote control that controls humans minds and let you sway against your will. this is the point where we let technology go too far and over power us which it shouldn’t.
Brian Craig | 14-Nov-06 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
I also agree with Deni that Clark brings up a very interesting point when you consider his definition of cyborg. I also have always thought of technology as Nkone does, that it was there to simply improve our efficiency and allow us to be more powerful. However, it is becoming such an intergral part of our everyday lives now, and as it continues to advance it is also becoming more ‘human’ in a way. Computers, phones, etc, now have voice activated controls, certain devices are implanted in the human body to enhance it’s functions (pacemakers, etc.). In a way, technology and humanity are merging into a cohesive unit. This way, I can see how we are becoming cyborgs, but, like Jessica, I have a problem with the whole ‘naturally born’ part. I have a hard time using the words ‘naturally’ and ‘cyborg’ together, as it seems to me we use technology to manipulate nature for our own means.