Class discussion aside, my personal definition of what characterizes a cyborg is slightly more conservative. A cyborg is a human with integrated, unnatural mechanical parts. This contrasts with androids, which I consider to be a subcategory of humanoid robot. Furthermore, by “integrated,” I primarily mean integrated internally, as in the case of a pacemaker, but some external accessories do make the cut: glasses, prosthetic limbs, perhaps even a wristwatch. However, I draw the line at cell phones, laptops, wireless car keys, etc. While these things may “extend our senses,” I do not believe that they are integrated with our selves in a fundamental enough way as to be considered cybernetic components of the human organism (yes it was necessary to spell out “cyborg”). I.e., one is blind without glasses, cannot walk without limbs, may be disoriented without a watch, but despite how many jokes have been made about surgical removal of phones from various persons’ ears, cell phones do not represent such an integral part of our (or at least my, which is the perspective I have to work with) daily functionality as to be considered a communications organ.
That being said, are cyborgs to be feared? Well, first we must consider that there are, at least, two varieties of cyborg. The examples listed above indicate cyborgs of the first variety—cyborgization as a means to bring a person up to baseline human functionality. The second variety, then, is the introduction of mechanical parts to enhance a person past normal human capabilities. For example, a friend of mine told me a certain Toronto Blue Jays pitcher had replaced some tendons in his arm with metal coils. After a long and frustrating internet search I was unable to verify this, but I’m using it as an example anyway. Now, this is an instance where the cyborg was already a Major League Baseball player, ergo, already in peak human physical condition, who then implanted cybernetic parts to be even better. This might be scary, had he chosen to do something besides throw baseballs with his newly mechanical arm.
And therein lies the entire debate about cybernetics, as well as pretty much everything else about the human condition. What do we believe the majority of people would do with a brand new mechanical arm? Would people use it to be able to lift bigger, heavier weapons, or just throw a baseball a bit faster? The truth is, probably both. We find ourselves once again mired in the gun rights debate, only now the gun is our own bodies. “This minigun arm is just for hunting.” If you ask me, and you’re reading my blog, so yes, you’re asking me, I would prefer to enhance myself, and the human race and condition, under my own steam. I think humanity was doing just fine in both getting food and killing each other before guns came along, too. I also think that no matter what I think, if people can get a pacemaker, then they can get laser eyes as well.
In sum, I do not believe cybernetics are a natural step in human progress. In fact, they are by definition not a natural step towards anything. However, I do not deem them to be by default evil. Like any other technology, it remains neutral until we give it purpose. One might note that I have not answered the biggest question I have posed: are people more good than evil, or vice versa? I do not know. I do not even have an opinion. In my personal philosophy, the human race is not the singular organism many see it as. So when I come across a race of men with cannons in their chests, I will have to evaluate them as I would otherwise: one at a time.
