what is your opinion on the augmentation of the human organism with technological components? as an example, artificial eyes or even processors that interact with the brain? or...?

if theorists like Hawking are to be believed, the next phase in human evolution will be characterized by purposeful engineering and not the natural selection of traits.

what are the implications as regards the nature of humanity?

As you might expect, the thought of an impending trans-human future is exciting to me, though it undoubtedly won't progress as far as i want it in my lifetime.

The way i see it, people augmenting themselves by way of their creations is in no way repulsive or unnatural, but i'm sure quite a few people will see it that way. Religious fundamentalists as well as those who will be interested in "preserving their humanity" (the very use of the term "post-human" by some implies that technology will take that away from us, for better or for worse) will refuse to integrate their bodies with the machine. Others will quietly bemoan their supposed loss of humanity but will still accept the changes in the interest of improving themselves.

This integration of humans and technology will be done in the interest of creating a utopia where broken parts are easily fixed and our capabilities can be invented and decided by ourselves. Of course there would be tension between the extreme advocates of the technological singularity and a growing movement of Neo-Luddites, whose own utopia would be pastoral, natural and mostly technology-free.

I personally wouldn't mind removing or altering most of what supposedly makes me "human", but i think that's another entire discussion in itself.

In a far-ahead future when we are essentially human computers- registered with some version of internet protocols, perhaps- there is the frightening notion that it would be possible to hack people...altering the code that runs essential parts of their brain and body. I can't imagine we would feel altogether very "human" at this point- but that's another question. How does one define "humanity" as a quality, and at which point would technology cause us to lose this quality completely, or, at least enough so that people might realize that they're missing something?
One does not have to be partially mechanized to feel inhuman.

There's also the question of whether the ability to have much more control over the aesthetics of ourselves and our world will lead to the flourishing of our individuality, or the loss of it.

It will also be very interesting when the business world of technology becomes much more personal- the competition between the big guns and the small companies who manage to invent something extremely useful. We are already augmented by our technologies and most of us are very dependent on them, but they exist at a remove- outside our physical bodies as gadgets, not part of our core physicality. It'll be interesting when that changes, to see how many accept it without question- attaching cellphones like skin grafts and the like.


My thoughts aren't very together right now, but these are just some of the things that i like to think about concerning this sort of thing.

Some great comments and insight, Aurelie, and you've triggered a couple new trains of thought for me on the issue.

I agree that augmentation is not unnatural or repulsive, and also agree that a vocal minority will nevertheless view it as such. Anticipating the 'loss of humanity' argument I submit that 'humanity', as dissenters might mean it, is subjective, experiential and bound by perspective. It is neither good nor bad, and is simply a point on a continuum. We know it's parameters only through our own experience of cognition, affect and physiology. It would be arrogant to suggest that our experience of the human condition today is more pure, proper or correct than the human experience of a technologically augmented person at some point in the future. Indeed, in the long view it may one day be widely held that the human experience as we know it today, 'humanity', is unnecessarily limited by biology and therefore inferior. I feel you and I are much in agreement on this point.

I share your sadness that we may not live to see some of the more profound changes It seems likely that the near future experience of being an augmented human will be as foreign to us today as our device-enhanced lives would be to Pythagoras or Aristotle.

A comment on your view of the likely motivators for augmentation (a utopian ideal being engineered through technology -- or even a noble desire to eliminate flaws). I certainly believe a strong segment of society will hold such ideals, but let me add a thought that occurred to me. Utopian goals require a certain degree of enlightenment, and I have doubts as to whether a greater percentage of future society will hold them than do those in society today. I expect very common motivators for augmentation will be vanity, the desire for power, jealousy, greed, entitlement and a perpetual state of dissatisfaction with the current body. Unless we can disentangle the primacy of self-interest from self-awareness (I doubt it can even be done), these tendencies will be prominent except in the case of great self-discipline. Too, unless human society overcomes its fixation on wealth and materialism (and consequently placing wealth-systems at the center of society and decision making), the manufacturing, marketing and sale of components will be highly commercialized. In this sense I agree with you that the tension between the small innovators and large establishment will be very interesting.

I wonder at the possible need for governments to expand their control over members of society when augmentation can increase the potential for an individual to inflict harm far beyond what it is today. In the year 700, a man with a sword could accomplish a certain amount of harm before he was killed; The force multiplier offered by a sword was limited. Today, a man with an automatic weapon or a bomb can multiply his force all the further by leveraging those tools. Even now we are moving towards a point where the distribution of technology and training is so broad that biological, radiological or nuclear weapons can be made in a home laboratory. What of the future man, with whatever potential to create harm afforded by future technology or body augmentation? Will an increase in human capability require a complimentary increase in human governance in order to maintain safety for the order of things? Will capabilities with the potential for great harm be restricted? Who will create these restrictions, and maintain the power to enforce them?

I have additional comments, but mostly ones of agreement and appreciating your particular insight on the issue. In the interest of being readable I'll end now and look forward to replies