I think, for the moment, I’m against reality with widespread use of augmented technologies for everyday life. Besides the environmental concerns I brought up in class, I agree that it would also cause significant social stratification.
I do think these technologies can be helpful for people with disabilities, for education (like the raining we saw), or as a novelty (like entertainment), but I watch too much sci-fi to believe the benefit to humanity will outweigh the loss of humanity (see Galaxy Express 999). I do think that a lot of my hesitation for this sort of augmented future comes from the rampant capitalism and consumption I see with our modern day augments, cell phones. There are both good things and bad things with cell phones, but I think our version of humanity now is unrecognizable to someone pre-iPhone. Perhaps my major hesitations towards this augmented future stems from a similar misunderstanding of what could be considered “humanity.” Anyways, those are my thoughts.
In my opinion, we should not overuse the concept of body cyborg because it can have negative consequences on our physical and mental health. While technology can enhance our physical abilities and extend our lifespan, it can also lead to dependency and a loss of agency over our own bodies. Additionally, the constant integration of technology into our bodies can erode our sense of self and our connection to nature. We should prioritize the development of technologies that augment our abilities while preserving our humanity and individuality. Ultimately, we should aim for a balanced approach that enhances our lives without compromising our health and wellbeing.
Cybernetic enhancements should not become mainstream until much more research have been done and are carefully regulated. My biggest concerns are long term effects are under studied, fairness and ethics, and the technology being manipulated to hurt others. We should apply more critical thinking and consider effects for all walks of life and impact on the planet before indulging in capitalistic behaviors that look cool but we don’t actually need. Research in the area however should not stop since there are people that need it, just we should be careful about commercializing them.
I think there is a lot of potential for the integration of technologies in creating cyborg bodies for benefit. As we discussed the opportunity in the prosthetics industries – creating better, more customisable products and reducing the stigma around them, are all important developments. However, I do agree that at the moment these technologies are in developmental stages and the potential for misuse and negative effects of these should not be ignored. Nonetheless I think future implementation of these technologies will be beneficial and once sufficient amount of research has been done we will be in better positions to judge the pros and cons.
I am against the mainstreaming of cyborg-ism for the sole reason that it could very well perpetuate existing inequality structures; for two reasons. First, technological upgrades are reserved for those that can afford them and thus may be able to use them to gain advantages over those that cannot. Second, differentiated treatments will increase as society has to adapt to a new ‘class’ of humans. I imagine a future where infrastructure and laws will have to be redesigned to accommodate such voluntarily upgraded people. I think we should treat this as a matter of wants and needs. Where we can solve real problems we should pursue such augmentations, but where it is merely ‘cool to have’ we have to critically wonder if this is desirable, and at what opportunity costs we develop these technologies.
I am against the possibility of having cyborg bodies becoming the new normal. The two reasons behind my opinion are linked with societal matters. I have to admit being confused about using this technology in any other way than necessary use-cases. Using technology to improve people’s lives in order for them to not suffer makes sense. But investing time and money in technology in order to superficially enhance us humans when other societal issues are not taken care of seems not right in my opinion. Our energy should be focused towards improving our relationship with our planet that we are currently destroying, and not on items that will bring more power to humans that don’t really need more power than already have. In addition, and as it has been already mentioned, this power will be given to people that can afford it, increasing inequalities in a frightening manner – more than it already is.
Cyborg augmentations at its current state shows comparable positive potential as well as negative ones. Just like major technological advancements in communication before they are “normalized” and now integrated in every aspect of society, it needs continuous and thorough study of arguments on both sides. That being said, learning from how we handle ongoing issues even in said normalized communication technology, it can be seen as a grand cautionary tale in approaching the normalization of cyborg augmentation. So for now no, but further deliberation might change how it should and can be a yes.
As of now, I am against the idea of living with a cyborg body being mainstream. I think that there is a lot of potential for this technology in helping people with disabilities through easier to use and more advanced prosthetics. However, when it comes to using such technology to add unnecessary features to the human body just because it seems cool, many problems can arise. For instance, relying too heavily on technology can lead to a deterioration in physical and mental health. Ethics is also an important topic to consider; what happens when people start using this technology immorally? Overall, I think there are definitely good uses for this technology, but we need to critically think about how it can be best implemented while preserving our basic humanity and why it is necessary for our future.
While I agree we should still continue researching and developing cybernetics and cyborgs, but I am against pushing for cybernetics implementation at the moment as there is a lot of problems that needs to be reconsidered and tackled. First of all, environment. If we want to make it a norm, it means there will be mass production of the goods and service, which means we need sustainable resources. Second, there might be a risk of limited resources if an applicable sustainable material cannot be found, creating a social disparity and only the rich people may have access to it, while others who need it too do not have the opportunity.
At some point, as of now, I’m still against on giving a cyborg body for our living enhancements. If we industrialized the cyborg body for our living in this current situation, it’ll create a social gap which leads to unfair advantage and discrimination to between the people who are embodied and those who don’t. Usually, cyborg body enhancement is used for people who have disabilities and some of them are used in rich people instead of the low class disability people. In this case, a strict regulation needs to be applied from the government as well as the IP (who are the liabilities and responsibility). If the low-class disability people can be subsidized or supported from the government to help them embodied the cyborg body, that could also be one of the solution. But legalizing this cyborg body is not an easy task. There are some side effects that need to be considered.
I believe research into cybernetics should continue as human augmentation is a natural progression in embodied technologies, however I do agree with my classmates about not commercializing or allowing cybernetics to be made mainstream. Primarily, there does not seem to be any regulation for these technological updates to human bodies as completely regular people have been able to access cybernetics which can lead to potential societal danger that we have no modern policies to regulate. Additionally, resources in cybernetics should be serving those with disabilities and in-need first rather. I do believe this argument goes back to a debate on “naturalness” and how the human species should be rather than what it could be though the use of technology. I think we will see debates like this more often as technologies such as CRISPR become more wide-spread.
I think for now, I am against making cyborg bodies mainstream. I do definitely see lots of positive potential as discussed in class with opportunity to possibly create some solutions for people with physical disabilities, or maybe even solutions for medical needs which I believe is something that should in-fact be continuously researched and hopefully become more common in the future. However, like many of my classmates have mentioned, making this into something mainstream and normalized as of now, is far too dangerous due to the the lack of information or resources to make this work ethically. Even if the intentions and purpose of creating cyborg body technology is good, like everything else in the world, without the proper laws and regulations they’re more than likely to be misused and create some serious problems. So at least until we have enough information and research as well as methods to regulate how this system would work. I don’t think it would make sense to make cyborg bodies mainstream.
I don’t think that cyborg bodies should become mainstream until the technology is properly regulated and producers are held accountable for maintaining and ensuring safety for the users. However, I also see great potential for cybernetics to help improve accessibility. In the future it could also become an interesting form of self expression and allow for new ways for people to explore and experience the world around them
I hold the belief that research on cyborg body technology has the potential to bring about a revolution in the lives of individuals with disabilities. By merging advanced technology with the human body, cyborg body research has the capacity to unveil unexplored possibilities and offer amplified capabilities for individuals facing physical limitations. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that this technology is still in its nascent stage and lacks the maturity required for widespread adoption in present-day society.
While I agree with the importance of using cyborg body techniques by licensed organizations in medical and security fields, such as its use in replacing lost organs for those injured in disasters and wars, as well as helping people with disabilities, and enhancing the capabilities of civil defense and rescue squads to aid people in need, I do not agree with the overuse of this technology in unimportant matters such as games and sports unless special regulations are drafted for such activities to prevent the misuse of this technology.
I think cyber modification has its own goods for life and experience improvement, but I’m against using cyber modification to become popular in the mainstream.
I think now development of cyber modification is in its early stages and it needs more research in terms of ; sustainability, ethical implication, considering the possibility of stigmatizing, considering who/where would be in charge of using this technology, what medical facilities and experts should be prepared in case a dangerous situation happens.
Using cyber modification for making new opportunities to make new life experience for people (for example for disabilities) is a good point of this technology, but I think currently philosophical and ethical concerns are as much important as functionality improvement .
In the current state and age, I am as well against cyber modification of bodies becoming mainstream. I believe that the existing technology that currently supports using cyborg modifications is not yet stable enough or has enough technological or legal infrastructure to support a societal shift towards an integration of these additive tools en masse. From an ethical perspective, I think also that more work needs to be done by policymakers and the companies that produce this technology to ensure that it is distributed and applied in a safe way.
While it certainly is good for people with disabilities, i am against cyberkinetic body parts in the current society as it may still have minor faults that could directly or indirectly impact our body. I do support the idea pf constant improvement and research for the coming future to later improve and be use for public.
After seeing the presentation of my classmates, I am against the mainstream use of cyborg parts. While the idea of cyborgs becoming more mainstream and widely used may seem intriguing, it raises significant concerns regarding the exacerbation of social inequalities and ethical concerns, like blurring the line between humans and machines
I think it is possible to actively develop cyborg body enhancements for human beings under fine technical support, which may include providing commercial cyborg enhancement services to the public. It is always the glorious imagination for disabled people and the ultimate goal for social groups pursuing accessibility. Normal people are also possible to get benefits from some of those technologies in their daily activities. As for the potential risks, a fine system can be established at the same time when more and more people come to use it. As many opponents would argue, it is very complicated and could involve lots of aspects. Actual deployment is the most effective way to quickly find the ideal solution. I don’t believe people had addressed all of the issues that would appear before the Internet came out and dominated our lives. Also you cannot totally eliminate the accidents and crime followed behind even nowadays. It is the vendor’s duty to make sure its safety and reliability.
There is a lot of concerns when it comes to the implementation of the uses of cyber technology in everyday life. The biggest concern I believe is the ability for us to connect back to emotional selves and others in an humanistic way… I think this could create and even bigger divided when it comes to creating equality and equity between communities and not to mention the enivromental impact that would have on the planet we are living in!
「3」への 21 件のコメント
I think, for the moment, I’m against reality with widespread use of augmented technologies for everyday life. Besides the environmental concerns I brought up in class, I agree that it would also cause significant social stratification.
I do think these technologies can be helpful for people with disabilities, for education (like the raining we saw), or as a novelty (like entertainment), but I watch too much sci-fi to believe the benefit to humanity will outweigh the loss of humanity (see Galaxy Express 999). I do think that a lot of my hesitation for this sort of augmented future comes from the rampant capitalism and consumption I see with our modern day augments, cell phones. There are both good things and bad things with cell phones, but I think our version of humanity now is unrecognizable to someone pre-iPhone. Perhaps my major hesitations towards this augmented future stems from a similar misunderstanding of what could be considered “humanity.” Anyways, those are my thoughts.
In my opinion, we should not overuse the concept of body cyborg because it can have negative consequences on our physical and mental health. While technology can enhance our physical abilities and extend our lifespan, it can also lead to dependency and a loss of agency over our own bodies. Additionally, the constant integration of technology into our bodies can erode our sense of self and our connection to nature. We should prioritize the development of technologies that augment our abilities while preserving our humanity and individuality. Ultimately, we should aim for a balanced approach that enhances our lives without compromising our health and wellbeing.
Cybernetic enhancements should not become mainstream until much more research have been done and are carefully regulated. My biggest concerns are long term effects are under studied, fairness and ethics, and the technology being manipulated to hurt others. We should apply more critical thinking and consider effects for all walks of life and impact on the planet before indulging in capitalistic behaviors that look cool but we don’t actually need. Research in the area however should not stop since there are people that need it, just we should be careful about commercializing them.
I think there is a lot of potential for the integration of technologies in creating cyborg bodies for benefit. As we discussed the opportunity in the prosthetics industries – creating better, more customisable products and reducing the stigma around them, are all important developments. However, I do agree that at the moment these technologies are in developmental stages and the potential for misuse and negative effects of these should not be ignored. Nonetheless I think future implementation of these technologies will be beneficial and once sufficient amount of research has been done we will be in better positions to judge the pros and cons.
I am against the mainstreaming of cyborg-ism for the sole reason that it could very well perpetuate existing inequality structures; for two reasons. First, technological upgrades are reserved for those that can afford them and thus may be able to use them to gain advantages over those that cannot. Second, differentiated treatments will increase as society has to adapt to a new ‘class’ of humans. I imagine a future where infrastructure and laws will have to be redesigned to accommodate such voluntarily upgraded people. I think we should treat this as a matter of wants and needs. Where we can solve real problems we should pursue such augmentations, but where it is merely ‘cool to have’ we have to critically wonder if this is desirable, and at what opportunity costs we develop these technologies.
I am against the possibility of having cyborg bodies becoming the new normal. The two reasons behind my opinion are linked with societal matters. I have to admit being confused about using this technology in any other way than necessary use-cases. Using technology to improve people’s lives in order for them to not suffer makes sense. But investing time and money in technology in order to superficially enhance us humans when other societal issues are not taken care of seems not right in my opinion. Our energy should be focused towards improving our relationship with our planet that we are currently destroying, and not on items that will bring more power to humans that don’t really need more power than already have. In addition, and as it has been already mentioned, this power will be given to people that can afford it, increasing inequalities in a frightening manner – more than it already is.
Cyborg augmentations at its current state shows comparable positive potential as well as negative ones. Just like major technological advancements in communication before they are “normalized” and now integrated in every aspect of society, it needs continuous and thorough study of arguments on both sides. That being said, learning from how we handle ongoing issues even in said normalized communication technology, it can be seen as a grand cautionary tale in approaching the normalization of cyborg augmentation. So for now no, but further deliberation might change how it should and can be a yes.
As of now, I am against the idea of living with a cyborg body being mainstream. I think that there is a lot of potential for this technology in helping people with disabilities through easier to use and more advanced prosthetics. However, when it comes to using such technology to add unnecessary features to the human body just because it seems cool, many problems can arise. For instance, relying too heavily on technology can lead to a deterioration in physical and mental health. Ethics is also an important topic to consider; what happens when people start using this technology immorally? Overall, I think there are definitely good uses for this technology, but we need to critically think about how it can be best implemented while preserving our basic humanity and why it is necessary for our future.
While I agree we should still continue researching and developing cybernetics and cyborgs, but I am against pushing for cybernetics implementation at the moment as there is a lot of problems that needs to be reconsidered and tackled. First of all, environment. If we want to make it a norm, it means there will be mass production of the goods and service, which means we need sustainable resources. Second, there might be a risk of limited resources if an applicable sustainable material cannot be found, creating a social disparity and only the rich people may have access to it, while others who need it too do not have the opportunity.
At some point, as of now, I’m still against on giving a cyborg body for our living enhancements. If we industrialized the cyborg body for our living in this current situation, it’ll create a social gap which leads to unfair advantage and discrimination to between the people who are embodied and those who don’t. Usually, cyborg body enhancement is used for people who have disabilities and some of them are used in rich people instead of the low class disability people. In this case, a strict regulation needs to be applied from the government as well as the IP (who are the liabilities and responsibility). If the low-class disability people can be subsidized or supported from the government to help them embodied the cyborg body, that could also be one of the solution. But legalizing this cyborg body is not an easy task. There are some side effects that need to be considered.
I believe research into cybernetics should continue as human augmentation is a natural progression in embodied technologies, however I do agree with my classmates about not commercializing or allowing cybernetics to be made mainstream. Primarily, there does not seem to be any regulation for these technological updates to human bodies as completely regular people have been able to access cybernetics which can lead to potential societal danger that we have no modern policies to regulate. Additionally, resources in cybernetics should be serving those with disabilities and in-need first rather. I do believe this argument goes back to a debate on “naturalness” and how the human species should be rather than what it could be though the use of technology. I think we will see debates like this more often as technologies such as CRISPR become more wide-spread.
I think for now, I am against making cyborg bodies mainstream. I do definitely see lots of positive potential as discussed in class with opportunity to possibly create some solutions for people with physical disabilities, or maybe even solutions for medical needs which I believe is something that should in-fact be continuously researched and hopefully become more common in the future. However, like many of my classmates have mentioned, making this into something mainstream and normalized as of now, is far too dangerous due to the the lack of information or resources to make this work ethically. Even if the intentions and purpose of creating cyborg body technology is good, like everything else in the world, without the proper laws and regulations they’re more than likely to be misused and create some serious problems. So at least until we have enough information and research as well as methods to regulate how this system would work. I don’t think it would make sense to make cyborg bodies mainstream.
I don’t think that cyborg bodies should become mainstream until the technology is properly regulated and producers are held accountable for maintaining and ensuring safety for the users. However, I also see great potential for cybernetics to help improve accessibility. In the future it could also become an interesting form of self expression and allow for new ways for people to explore and experience the world around them
I hold the belief that research on cyborg body technology has the potential to bring about a revolution in the lives of individuals with disabilities. By merging advanced technology with the human body, cyborg body research has the capacity to unveil unexplored possibilities and offer amplified capabilities for individuals facing physical limitations. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that this technology is still in its nascent stage and lacks the maturity required for widespread adoption in present-day society.
While I agree with the importance of using cyborg body techniques by licensed organizations in medical and security fields, such as its use in replacing lost organs for those injured in disasters and wars, as well as helping people with disabilities, and enhancing the capabilities of civil defense and rescue squads to aid people in need, I do not agree with the overuse of this technology in unimportant matters such as games and sports unless special regulations are drafted for such activities to prevent the misuse of this technology.
I think cyber modification has its own goods for life and experience improvement, but I’m against using cyber modification to become popular in the mainstream.
I think now development of cyber modification is in its early stages and it needs more research in terms of ; sustainability, ethical implication, considering the possibility of stigmatizing, considering who/where would be in charge of using this technology, what medical facilities and experts should be prepared in case a dangerous situation happens.
Using cyber modification for making new opportunities to make new life experience for people (for example for disabilities) is a good point of this technology, but I think currently philosophical and ethical concerns are as much important as functionality improvement .
In the current state and age, I am as well against cyber modification of bodies becoming mainstream. I believe that the existing technology that currently supports using cyborg modifications is not yet stable enough or has enough technological or legal infrastructure to support a societal shift towards an integration of these additive tools en masse. From an ethical perspective, I think also that more work needs to be done by policymakers and the companies that produce this technology to ensure that it is distributed and applied in a safe way.
While it certainly is good for people with disabilities, i am against cyberkinetic body parts in the current society as it may still have minor faults that could directly or indirectly impact our body. I do support the idea pf constant improvement and research for the coming future to later improve and be use for public.
After seeing the presentation of my classmates, I am against the mainstream use of cyborg parts. While the idea of cyborgs becoming more mainstream and widely used may seem intriguing, it raises significant concerns regarding the exacerbation of social inequalities and ethical concerns, like blurring the line between humans and machines
I think it is possible to actively develop cyborg body enhancements for human beings under fine technical support, which may include providing commercial cyborg enhancement services to the public. It is always the glorious imagination for disabled people and the ultimate goal for social groups pursuing accessibility. Normal people are also possible to get benefits from some of those technologies in their daily activities. As for the potential risks, a fine system can be established at the same time when more and more people come to use it. As many opponents would argue, it is very complicated and could involve lots of aspects. Actual deployment is the most effective way to quickly find the ideal solution. I don’t believe people had addressed all of the issues that would appear before the Internet came out and dominated our lives. Also you cannot totally eliminate the accidents and crime followed behind even nowadays. It is the vendor’s duty to make sure its safety and reliability.
There is a lot of concerns when it comes to the implementation of the uses of cyber technology in everyday life. The biggest concern I believe is the ability for us to connect back to emotional selves and others in an humanistic way… I think this could create and even bigger divided when it comes to creating equality and equity between communities and not to mention the enivromental impact that would have on the planet we are living in!