Blackspot

Cyborgs Among Us

"The human and the machine-human, cannot peacefully co-exist."

With Bluetooth headsets attached, iPods blocking out the world and tiny netbooks stashed near to hand — some of us are choosing to augment our bodies with wearable computers, becoming other-than-human. These technologies are touted as beneficial (or at least benign) and promise to expand the powers of our bodies and allow us to surpass the physical limitations of being organic. Now people can gossip on the phone without using their hands, distract themselves with ear shattering music while in a silent library and share pictures of being on a beach while on the beach. No longer only human, the cyborgs among us have hooked up their nervous systems to machines, unknowingly laying the groundwork for a coming clash of civilizations.

If we take only one lesson from the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, it should be that technology is not a tool but a way of revealing the world. Heidegger believed that the danger of technology was not in its uses but instead in its ability to create a frame through which the world appears flattened, altering the way we know and think. In other words, if the only technology you have is a hammer then you will only see nails. That is why, watching cyborgs in the park, eyes glued to mini-screens as they text and walk, earbuds plugged in, I wonder whether the pixilated world they are experiencing is not radically antagonistic to the one I inhabit.

As increasing numbers of humans choose to supplement themselves with machines, it is possible that the primary clash of civilizations in the years to come will not be between East and West, but between Human and Cyborg. Those who have become addicted to the constant buzz of being connected will always face opponents who still believe that the world experienced through a screen is in some way deficient; lacking in the sublime splendor of undesigned reality.

These two perspectives, the human and the machine-human, cannot peacefully co-exist for long because the frame through which the cyborg sees the world is one in which the mystery of existence has been programatically obscured. Cyborgs are like the novice gardener who rips up seldom blooming flowers thinking them to be merely weeds: unable to value the richness of a technologically minimal world, machine augmented humans unconsciously trample what they cannot appreciate.

The challenge is how to embrace being fully-human not out of a nostalgic desire to go backward but instead a fervent will to move forward – to embrace again the dream of a enlightened humanity who reaches toward wisdom and spiritual fulfillment not through repeated consumption of silicon chips but instead through simple, meditative living.

Micah White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He is writing a book on the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org

68 comments on the article “Cyborgs Among Us”

Displaying 31 - 40 of 68

Page 4 of 7

Khall

*sigh* Adbusters does so much of value. Then you come out with these silly, extremist attitudes that just make you look like crackpots. Cyborg is a loaded word. A very, very loaded word. Using it, intentionally, in this context and with this much mass behind it is not only disrespectful, but like PETA, counter-productive to your end goals. Plus it makes you look stupid when you rant about the evils of technology by posting on a website. Just saying. This neo-Luddite nonsense doesn't serve you. You are trying to hold back a flood with a garden trowel. The only path forward is one of innovation. With progress and innovation, comes unanticipated social ills and sometimes worse evils. That's merely a fact of life. The murder rate has gone up, since the invention of personal firearms. Any argument that entails 'get rid of guns' is non-functional. Period. It does not serve your cause. It is, by definition, short-sighted and empty liberal feel-good flailing. Any time your argument can be summed up as 'if everybody just does good, all the time, the world will be a perfect place' or any time it can be defeated with 'what if I kept a gun, then I'd be the most powerful person on the planet' you've wasted your time and the time of your supporters. I think the idea that screens muddy the world is an interesting one and one that deserves more investigation and research and experimentation. I think, as a personal choice, we have to commit ourselves to 'keeping it real'. But expecting everyone in the world to do so, because you think it is good, and convincing them of the strength of your idea via anti-based propaganda is dishonest. And dishonorable. It is immoral. And, like the anti-drug 'just say no', DARE campaigns...any time you lie or spin to your audience, about anything, no matter how trivial you lose credibility. All you have to sell, at this point, it sounds like, is your credibility. I know it's fun to be liberal and want to change the world. I'm not conservative, in case that sounds like a politics-based imprecation. But, policies have to make sense. They have to actually work. Railing about problems, while offering no realistic, practical, useful solutions is spume. Needless, useless, emotional venting. Like 13-year old friends drama. One little girl hates the other, nobody knows why, the dispute drags on for years, involves horrible gossip, slander, even possibly physical violence, but accomplishes nothing and has no realistic, rational goals. In effect, it becomes emotional masturbation. Most sane, adult people are too busy, too stressed out, and too occupied with life and practicalities to indulge in that for very long. Make a change. Make progress. Find a solution. Railing about the problem, particularly with childish, cheesy demagoguery does nothing useful toward the problem. Though it does get you a lot of attention, most of it is expressed in the form of a sigh. Or changing the channel. K.

Khall

*sigh* Adbusters does so much of value. Then you come out with these silly, extremist attitudes that just make you look like crackpots. Cyborg is a loaded word. A very, very loaded word. Using it, intentionally, in this context and with this much mass behind it is not only disrespectful, but like PETA, counter-productive to your end goals. Plus it makes you look stupid when you rant about the evils of technology by posting on a website. Just saying. This neo-Luddite nonsense doesn't serve you. You are trying to hold back a flood with a garden trowel. The only path forward is one of innovation. With progress and innovation, comes unanticipated social ills and sometimes worse evils. That's merely a fact of life. The murder rate has gone up, since the invention of personal firearms. Any argument that entails 'get rid of guns' is non-functional. Period. It does not serve your cause. It is, by definition, short-sighted and empty liberal feel-good flailing. Any time your argument can be summed up as 'if everybody just does good, all the time, the world will be a perfect place' or any time it can be defeated with 'what if I kept a gun, then I'd be the most powerful person on the planet' you've wasted your time and the time of your supporters. I think the idea that screens muddy the world is an interesting one and one that deserves more investigation and research and experimentation. I think, as a personal choice, we have to commit ourselves to 'keeping it real'. But expecting everyone in the world to do so, because you think it is good, and convincing them of the strength of your idea via anti-based propaganda is dishonest. And dishonorable. It is immoral. And, like the anti-drug 'just say no', DARE campaigns...any time you lie or spin to your audience, about anything, no matter how trivial you lose credibility. All you have to sell, at this point, it sounds like, is your credibility. I know it's fun to be liberal and want to change the world. I'm not conservative, in case that sounds like a politics-based imprecation. But, policies have to make sense. They have to actually work. Railing about problems, while offering no realistic, practical, useful solutions is spume. Needless, useless, emotional venting. Like 13-year old friends drama. One little girl hates the other, nobody knows why, the dispute drags on for years, involves horrible gossip, slander, even possibly physical violence, but accomplishes nothing and has no realistic, rational goals. In effect, it becomes emotional masturbation. Most sane, adult people are too busy, too stressed out, and too occupied with life and practicalities to indulge in that for very long. Make a change. Make progress. Find a solution. Railing about the problem, particularly with childish, cheesy demagoguery does nothing useful toward the problem. Though it does get you a lot of attention, most of it is expressed in the form of a sigh. Or changing the channel. K.

Michael M.

It seems you've taken a very complex and dynamic concept (machine - human interface) and seriously oversimplified it in a very naive way using nice flowery, poetic language to drive your point home. ( a logical fallacy by the way). It seems your argument is this: because the frame through which the cyborg sees the world is one in which the mystery of existence has been programatically obscured. Thus, the human and the machine-human, cannot peacefully co-exist for long. First, I'm not even sure what your premise is stating, and your argument for it is pretty weak, but also, clearly your the conclusion doesnt even follow from such a premise. you offer a weak argument littered with euphemisms and logical fallacies...my friend. the machine- human machine interface has alwasy been a double edged sword ever since the time man has held a hammer in his hands...instead of resisting it we need to act more responsibly about it. Moreover i think its evident that you have not read much about the situation or its complexities...

Michael M.

It seems you've taken a very complex and dynamic concept (machine - human interface) and seriously oversimplified it in a very naive way using nice flowery, poetic language to drive your point home. ( a logical fallacy by the way). It seems your argument is this: because the frame through which the cyborg sees the world is one in which the mystery of existence has been programatically obscured. Thus, the human and the machine-human, cannot peacefully co-exist for long. First, I'm not even sure what your premise is stating, and your argument for it is pretty weak, but also, clearly your the conclusion doesnt even follow from such a premise. you offer a weak argument littered with euphemisms and logical fallacies...my friend. the machine- human machine interface has alwasy been a double edged sword ever since the time man has held a hammer in his hands...instead of resisting it we need to act more responsibly about it. Moreover i think its evident that you have not read much about the situation or its complexities...

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.