Personally, I can relate to having a natural body. That isn't to say my life is not aided by the use of technology. Peters discusses the definition of a natural body, that it does not mean that it is "less marked by technology than the cyberbody, modified body, or enhanced body." It just means that a natural body can function independently from technology. Growing up in Boy Scouts, I am confident that put in the wild, I could survive many perils. The effects technology have on me are not excessive. It is, however, a conscience effort of mine to keep it that way. I will not allow devices like my cellular phone and computer to keep me from doing what I love. If I decide to get a tattoo, I would like to have human flesh to put it on. If I decide to cut my hair, I want it to grow back at a natural rate. Call me traditionalist, but some things, I believe, are meant to stay a certain course.
Friday, February 5, 2010
A Pound of Flesh - ER
After internalizing the four examples of human and posthuman existence as described by Mischa Peters in her article, "exit meat," I was able to pick one of her body concepts to identify with. But before divulging personal preferences, let me first discuss the ramifications that posthuman existence would have historically. King Leonidas, with the help of an enhanced body, would never had fallen to the powerful Xerxes. This historical change would affect stories, textbooks, movies, and culture. Had Shakespeare's Antonio but a cyber body to represent himself to Shylock, there would have been no fear over losing a pound of flesh. History would be altered, and culture because of it.
I'm not entirely sure as to the meaning behind your first paragraph. How would these historical figures gain access to said "enhanced bodies?" If this was the case, wouldn't other people from the time period have enhanced bodies as well? I feel as though the implications and reparations of enhanced bodies lies in the future, not in the past. Had that technology been around sooner, chances are that the same events that we know from history would not. As for the second paragraph, it's good to see a fellow boy scout in my English class. I grew up in scouts as well and spent many nights in the wildnerness, ready to thrive using my own skills without any cyber enhancements.
ReplyDeleteI think you need to put the technology into perspective. King Leonidas (although he's a boss) and Antonio did not have the technology that we are discussing available to them, rendering your point illegitimate. You can't change the course of history by pondering what might happen if peoples of the past had the technology that we have today.
ReplyDeleteMoving on, I agree with your claims made in the second paragraph. I don't necessarily believe you are a traditionalist in your desire to get a tattoo on flesh or a haircut that will grow back, but more so a naturalist. Those two things are just natural to human existence, things that should remain human forever.