Again thanks for the post MikeTheMugger, who posted the video in discord about Issac Arthur's Cyborg https://youtu.be/cGYKCTFIZLI
Truthfully, I didn't finish the video. My patience ended at (12:37) but at the risk of sounding arrogant, the ideas presented up to where I stopped watching I already had a sense for the topic and warranted some comment on the subject. What existing augment that is available and become available doesn't really interest me, rather as time marches on, the social adoption of, the scope of behavior and scale of usage does and how will people react to such changes.
I agree with Issac in that finding a working clarification for what is and what is not a cyborg to important to understand a few reasons, one being how to relate to someone who has had a body altering change that could impact a persons personalty, example being force multiplication (strength, endurance or memory) to challenge existing social mores, Another could be accommodations for harmful reactions that could occur to someone who is not entirely unmodified due to age or attempting to regain some lost vitality. Mentioned briefly in the video was the mosquito ultra frequency noise against young people, loitering and crowd disbursement.
Theoretically Someone who had a loss of range of hearing (frequency) later regained it after some implant, treatment or surgery now has to live with a unwanted hearing intrusion in their senses just like the young people. Do the people affected by the mosquito noise have a reasonable claim against those who would use it against them with malicious intent exploiting a vulnerability? I am not moving the goal posts on the subject but I think that those who have some change and those who have not changes to their respective bodies are intimately effected by those who do and the creeping impact, specifically the legal protections that can be enforced and the threat of force should such protection be ignored.
The last idea that would be important to mention would be the adoption of laws (or change of laws and punishment case by case basis) that govern what should done about whom had committed a crime while having been augmented/enhanced. Lance Armstrong who during his career as a cyclist, raced the Tour De France, de Luxenbourg and DuPont races 1993 - 1998, did win the races the he participated in and was later banished from cycling for blood doping i.e Juicing. His record of achievement no longer remembered for his violation of the rules. Here I find the line between chemical and technological improvement to be at a cross roads where I don't have a hard and fast universal perspective on what I consider to make a distinction between lawful or unlawful for what is taboo and what is progress that has the real potential to improve the lives of everyone and for those who want to compete.
Truthfully, I didn't finish the video. My patience ended at (12:37) but at the risk of sounding arrogant, the ideas presented up to where I stopped watching I already had a sense for the topic and warranted some comment on the subject. What existing augment that is available and become available doesn't really interest me, rather as time marches on, the social adoption of, the scope of behavior and scale of usage does and how will people react to such changes.
I agree with Issac in that finding a working clarification for what is and what is not a cyborg to important to understand a few reasons, one being how to relate to someone who has had a body altering change that could impact a persons personalty, example being force multiplication (strength, endurance or memory) to challenge existing social mores, Another could be accommodations for harmful reactions that could occur to someone who is not entirely unmodified due to age or attempting to regain some lost vitality. Mentioned briefly in the video was the mosquito ultra frequency noise against young people, loitering and crowd disbursement.
Theoretically Someone who had a loss of range of hearing (frequency) later regained it after some implant, treatment or surgery now has to live with a unwanted hearing intrusion in their senses just like the young people. Do the people affected by the mosquito noise have a reasonable claim against those who would use it against them with malicious intent exploiting a vulnerability? I am not moving the goal posts on the subject but I think that those who have some change and those who have not changes to their respective bodies are intimately effected by those who do and the creeping impact, specifically the legal protections that can be enforced and the threat of force should such protection be ignored.
The last idea that would be important to mention would be the adoption of laws (or change of laws and punishment case by case basis) that govern what should done about whom had committed a crime while having been augmented/enhanced. Lance Armstrong who during his career as a cyclist, raced the Tour De France, de Luxenbourg and DuPont races 1993 - 1998, did win the races the he participated in and was later banished from cycling for blood doping i.e Juicing. His record of achievement no longer remembered for his violation of the rules. Here I find the line between chemical and technological improvement to be at a cross roads where I don't have a hard and fast universal perspective on what I consider to make a distinction between lawful or unlawful for what is taboo and what is progress that has the real potential to improve the lives of everyone and for those who want to compete.