Humanity is secondary
While reading the article by Clynes and Kline, my first impression was that the original cyborg was really nowhere near the half man, half machine it's known as today. But the more I read, the more apparent that Clynes and Kline's proposed "biochemical, physiological, and electronic modifications" were really just adjustments meant to mechanize the human body (29). It seemed that their ultimate goal was to bypass the natural process of selection and evolution, allowing humans to adapt to extreme conditions (such as space) in the most painless way possible. In other words, they were looking for the shortest path to advancement: with human obstacles such as food and excretion aside, astronauts would then in theory be free to explore the mysteries of space and in turn increase the breadth of scientific knowledge.
Here we come to the classic dilemma of scientific advancement and ethics. With all our normal bodily functions regulated by a complex combination of chemicals, what becomes of humans' natural existence? At that point, aren't humans indistinguishable from products of scientific experiments, shells made to house chemicals? After all, those of us sent off into space are subjected to prolonged states of sleep, brought on by low temperatures and chemicals designed to decrease consumption and excretion. These 'cyborgs' are in effect comatose, reliant on drugs to "help maintain muscle tone" (32). To me, this type of life is not really living at all; cyborgs are just bodies that are existing, caught in a state of artificial stagnation. It's really kind of depressing to think that in this context, cyborgs are not given a chance to move forward -- they don't have to react or adapt to changes around them, for everything is taken care of by self regulated pharmaceutical injections. Emotional needs (friendship, etc) that remind them of their human natures are simply dismissed as problems that are "amenable to pharmacological influence" (33).
It seems that from their inception, cyborgs have been doomed to lead artificial existences, suspended in a certain space and time. Where is the humanity in that?
Here we come to the classic dilemma of scientific advancement and ethics. With all our normal bodily functions regulated by a complex combination of chemicals, what becomes of humans' natural existence? At that point, aren't humans indistinguishable from products of scientific experiments, shells made to house chemicals? After all, those of us sent off into space are subjected to prolonged states of sleep, brought on by low temperatures and chemicals designed to decrease consumption and excretion. These 'cyborgs' are in effect comatose, reliant on drugs to "help maintain muscle tone" (32). To me, this type of life is not really living at all; cyborgs are just bodies that are existing, caught in a state of artificial stagnation. It's really kind of depressing to think that in this context, cyborgs are not given a chance to move forward -- they don't have to react or adapt to changes around them, for everything is taken care of by self regulated pharmaceutical injections. Emotional needs (friendship, etc) that remind them of their human natures are simply dismissed as problems that are "amenable to pharmacological influence" (33).
It seems that from their inception, cyborgs have been doomed to lead artificial existences, suspended in a certain space and time. Where is the humanity in that?
posted by Quinn at 10:43 PM
1 Comments:
I agree that such dramatic changes in the human body ultimately forces us to lose humanity instead of "humanizing" people. However, playing the devil's advocate, I wonder what those living 300-400 years ago would think of us now. People take drugs for depression today to alter their chemical state. People in their 60s and 70s are getting hip and knee replacements in order to traverse the life of old age (parallel to traversing space). Thus, I'm thinking that we probably do not seem to resemble humanity much from the perspective of those living centuries ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home