[ExI] Blackford and Egan on >H
mbb386 at main.nc.us
Sun Apr 27 13:02:06 UTC 2008
> And as the definition is, a
> cyborg is a person (or entity) who depends on technology in its everyday
> life. I have glasses, thus I am a cyborg. I wouldn't be able to live without
> technology. I always have my laptop with me, for example. Now, a person who,
> without a pacemaker, would die in an instant, finely satisfies the
> definition of a cybernetic organism. Oh, and if you have organic
> augmentations (wetware add-ons), you still are a cyborg :)
This is how I like to present Transhumanism, if and when such a discussion comes up.
Most folks I know (being a geezer and all!) are walking down that path already, or
their nearest and dearest are. Hard to denigrate something "everybody" is depending
on to live!
For me the sad part is the lack of evolutionary pressure here. Becoming a cyborg
isn't heritable. :( So it's a dead end. It's just us with new fancy tools. :(
Question: do we have any examples of cyborg-like medical interventions that *are*
heritable? Nothing I'm aware of - but the times they are a-changing so perhaps this
too will occur with gene work?
More information about the extropy-chat