After reading the excerpt from Andy Clark's "Natural Born Cyborgs", I found myself debating as to whether or not I agreed with his arguments. He believes that we are all natural born cyborgs because of the fact that humans have the ability to use constructs, props, and aids. He claims that we become one with our best and most reliable tools. He feels that it is becoming increasingly hard to distinguish where the world stops and where the person begins. Does this really mean that all humans are "cyborgs" though?
I found a definition for the word cyborg that states, "The term cyborg, a portmanteau of cybernetic organism, is used to designate a creature which is a mixture of organic and mechanical parts. Generally, the aim is to add to or enhance the abilities of an organism by using technology." I think the second half of this definition agrees with Clark in that we use technology to enhance our abilities, however, its not as though we have computers embedded into the palm of our hands. Is the fact that we use technology on occasion enough to constitute us as cyborgs. I think that the term cyborg is a little too extreme especially because of the mental images people already have when they hear that term. I thought that his term "mind-ware upgrades" was also very interesting. Does he mean that we really are increasing our mental capabilities, or are we just being able to use our preexisting abilities more effectively. I would agree with the latter. Another quote from the reading is that, "The mind is less and less in the head." I don't necessarily agree with that statement either. I mean, sure we use calculators to do long division, but that doesn't mean we are any less intelligent. We are simply being more efficient. The mind is still doing work to figure out problems.
I think that Clark's idea is one that is worth thinking about. Our world today is becoming very dependent on technology. However, humans have been using tools and aids to carry out everyday functions for thousands of years. Were we "cyborgs" then, or does it only apply to recent advances in technology? I think he has a good point when describing how different human beings are from other animals and what separates us from them, but I do not know if coining human beings with the term "cyborg" is necessarily accurate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree that using the term cyborg is not completely accurrate. When I think of a cyborg, they have some extension of their body, but it is something that they need to survive. I guess it may be like a pace maker. But the examples he was giving, such as a calculator or a cell-phone, are not things that we need to survive. If you take them away, we may be agitated and even lost for awhile, but we don't die. So, I agree with you that the term might not necessarily be accurrate.
Post a Comment