There has been talk about people having bionic arms or legs to enhance their strength or even having technologically enhanced body parts. In "Exit Meat", Mischa Peters explores the extent to which the body can be technologically modified by categorizing the level of technological enhancement into a matrix. The options are the natural body, Cyber body, modified body and enhanced body. All of which have different levels of technological integration into the fabric of the human body. In her discussion of these different categories, she describes how those with the different types of bodies regard one another, and this is what pushes me to make my decision of which body I identify with the most.
I personally do not like to take medicine unless I am very ill, and therefore I strongly oppose the idea of integrating technology into the human body. Therefore I think that my life identifies most with that of the natural body. I consider the integration of technology into the human fabric to be more of an invasion of what is natural. I strongly agree with the concept that is presented that there are boundaries between the natural and the technological that must not be crossed, and would be on the side of Rosa in her anecdote from Synners where Sam is used as a computer battery. The body is a natural creation and technological interference should only be present for those who require it to lead a normal life, and not to enhance humans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I initially agreed completely with your ideas, that technology is something that should not be integrated with a natural human life, but I've been studying for my global change class a lot recently and it has made me think about the integration of things that are natural and technological differently. For example, genetically engineered foods; these are certainly not natural, but hold much promise for meeting the nutritional demands of people in the developing world.
ReplyDeleteThe use of technology has done much to destroy our natural resources, but also holds promise in restoring some of the damage that has been done. In a similar fashion, couldn't it be that technology can help repair a "damaged" human being, like someone who is paralyzed, etc.? Maybe our fear of combining the natural and technological is purely instinctual, and with further rational thinking we would come to different conclusions.
The title of your post really caught my attention. After skimming through a few of our posts, we all seem to have our own little twist to the definition of "natural". Your definition makes sense to me in that you actively choose to not mix technology and the nature of the human body. I completely agree that integrating technology simply to enhance an otherwise normal body is an ethical dilemma with clear boundaries. However, should we consider our brains to be enhanced because we are constantly immersing ourselves in technology?
ReplyDelete