Month: November 2024

Considering what I have learned in this class on cyberpunk, postglobal, and posthuman studies, human augmentation represents technology, identity, and societal structures. Works like Neuromancer reveal how corporate and capitalist forces exploit technology that creates both liberation and oppression. Cyberpunk explores the duality of augmentation, empowering individuals while subjecting them to systems of control. Currently, we stand on the threshold of a technologically enhanced future. Human augmentation offers glimpses into what we might become. From my experiences in this course exploring cyberpunk, post-global, and posthuman themes, it’s clear that augmentation represents both promise and uncertainty, for it challenges the essence of humanity while offering tools to explore our limitations. In our lifetime, human augmentation is supposed to evolve dramatically. Technologies like gene-editing tools could redefine what is possible in eliminating diseases or optimizing human traits. Prosthetics may soon surpass natural limbs offeringenhanced strength and even aesthetic customization. These advancements reflect the posthuman vision of a world where humans and machines combine which blends identity identities. For individuals, the options to “become more than nature intended” will likely be diverse. Biomechanical augmentations might enhance physical capabilities, from running faster to withstanding extreme environments. Cosmetic enhancements could push the boundaries of personal expression that redefine beauty standards in ways unthinkable today which we are already starting to see. However, not all adaptations would be acceptable. Enhancements that show inequality where only the wealthy can afford to upgrade would deepen societal divides. This illustrates cyberpunk’s warnings about corporate control and exploitation. I would consider augmentations that improve health and functionality, such as managing chronic conditions or enhancing mobility. These align with the humanistic goal of improving quality of life. However, I would draw the line at augmentations that alter identity to the point where continuity of self is lost. For example, extreme genetic modifications that blur the line between human and machine is a no for me. As we move into this augmented future, the challenge will be to balance innovation with ethics. Who controls these technologies? How do we ensure equitable access? These questions demand urgent attention if we navigate augmentation’s potential without losing sight of our humanity.

In the Machinehood through the use of the various pill funders we see an example of how corporate exploitation reaches an all time peak.  In the novel, we see how giant pharmaceutical companies monopolize the production of performance-enhancing pills. To many of the workers these  pills have become essential for them to be in a hyper-competitive gig economy. In the Machinehood world,  their productivity basically determines their survival. The novel shows how these corporations have turned the capabilities of their workers into a commodity. They reduce these individuals to minuscule tools that they can simply optimize for profit through the use of drugs. This mirrors how in the present society there is a concern about the pharmaceutical industry, and the many ways it is using exorbitant pricing to monopolize human health.  These companies practice limiting access to essential medicines to the wealthy, prioritizing profits over public health. Although the pharmaceutical companies have a big impact on the distribution of drugs, so have other illegal methods. 

The examples we see of the corporate behaviors depicted in the Machinehood is somewhat hyperbolic, however, when looking at  contemporary society, the illustration in this story may not be as far-fetched as it seems.The pharmaceutical industry has been criticized for prioritizing their profits over the accessibility of medications for patients. Similarly, the opioid epidemic highlights how companies, for example Purdue Pharma, try to aggressively market addictive painkillers. This led to many people on the street trying to make and sell knock offs despite knowing their harmful effects, prioritizing profit at the expense of public health. The present day use and effects of addictive drugs makes the use of the pills in Machinehood not seem so hyperbolic. It is easy to make people addicted, and addicts will do anything for a fix. These people could easily become addicted to working simply to receive the pills.

In my opinion, human augmentation is no longer confined to the realms of science fiction. As technologies like neuroprosthetics and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) emerge, the lines between the natural and artificial grow increasingly blurred. Reflecting on the insights from our cyberpunk class, The Wandering Earth, and Hossain and Ahmed’s ethical analysis of neurotechnology, it’s clear that the future of human enhancement holds incredible potential, but it is brought with challenges

Human augmentation is positioned to transform how we live, work, and interact. In the medical field, which is a field I desire to work in, as highlighted by Hossain and Ahmed, technologies like BCIs and tactile neuroprosthetics could enhance cognition, precision, and sensory input for surgeons and physicians. Beyond healthcare, augmented reality interfaces, robotic exoskeletons, and memory-enhancing implants may become accessible, reshaping productivity and personal potential. In The Wandering Earth, we saw how technological ingenuity was essential for humanity’s survival; similarly, neurotechnologies could empower individuals to achieve beyond natural limitations, enabling faster learning, better decision-making, and expanded physical abilities.

However, as we discussed in class, such technologies also carry significant risks. Ethical concerns about autonomy, equity, and identity mirror cyberpunk narratives where augmentation creates dystopian realities. For instance, Hossain and Ahmed raise critical points about the dangers of malicious brain-hacking, loss of personal agency, and deepening social divides, all of which resonate with the cautionary themes of cyberpunk media.

In our lifetime, options for augmentation will likely range from sensory enhancements (such as improved vision or tactile sensitivity) to advanced cognitive implants that boost memory and attention. Hossain and Ahmed discuss how neuroprosthetics can be combined with tactile sensors to give surgeons the ability to feel during operations, enabling greater precision. Similarly, BCIs could allow individuals to interface directly with machines, streamlining tasks like education or professional training.

I would consider augmentations that enhance quality of life without compromising identity or autonomy. For instance, cognitive implants to improve focus or memory would be appealing, especially for tasks requiring long-term retention and problem-solving. Sensory enhancements, like advanced vision or hearing, could enrich daily experiences while maintaining personal agency.

However, I would reject augmentations that compromise mental integrity or exacerbate inequality. Hossain and Ahmed warn of malicious brain-hacking, where external agents could manipulate neural activity, stripping individuals of autonomy. This is unacceptable, as it poses risks not only to personal identity but also to broader societal trust. I would also reject adaptations that create unjust advantages, such as cognitive implants for competitive edge in professional or academic settings, as they could lead to new forms of discrimination and inequality.

The societal pressures to adopt augmentations are another concern. Hossain and Ahmed argue that non-augmented individuals might be perceived as inferior, leading to marginalization. This echoes the cyberpunk cautionary tales we’ve studied, where technology often amplifies societal divides rather than bridging them.

References: Hossain, S. Q., & Ahmed, S. I. (n.d.). Ethical analysis on the application of neurotechnology for human augmentation in physicians and surgeons. https://arxiv.org/html/2006.16925v3

In my lifetime, I feel like things such as Human Augmentation will go very far. I don’t know how far but from what I even grew up with from 15 years ago to today and what we have such as generative Ai that is used all the time, I can see it going a lot of places. In today’s world, we are already starting to advance and from things such as futuristic movies and other pieces of media, there are ideas that people already have saved and are in the process of making. One simple way is how intricate prosthetics can get because I never knew how expensive certain parts could cost and how one could even afford them until I researched it. In that if we have intricate pieces such as really robotic arms then soon we can already see things such as robotic eyes and more be made soon in the future. I can see things or parts like eyes being made because those are parts that usually people can’t use anymore so I’d think that would be the first step. In my mind, something like one of the Black Mirror episodes where they could watch back memories would be something in the far future. For myself, I don’t think I would go that far especially since I would be so much older and I think that would just be too much for someone my age at that point. I may want to try some augmentations but theres a certain limit and difference from help and from doing more than what is needed for human survival and even enjoyment. For some, it is just have the possession or being able to say they have something that others don’t but I don’t think I’d be like that at all. There are also some augmentations that may be too much such as ones that may be able to mess with someone else instead of helping the person who’s getting it such as using an augmentation that could change appearance.

sources:

Eden J, Bräcklein M, Ibáñez J, Barsakcioglu DY, Di Pino G, Farina D, Burdet E, Mehring C. Principles of human movement augmentation and the challenges in making it a reality. Nat Commun. 2022 Mar 15;13(1):1345. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28725-7. PMID: 35292665; PMCID: PMC8924218.

De Boeck, M., & Vaes, K. (2024). Human augmentation and its new design perspectives. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 12(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2023.2288125

Yoon, Y., Cho, IJ. A review of human augmentation and individual combat capability: focusing on MEMS-based neurotechnology. Micro and Nano Syst Lett 12, 17 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40486-024-00205-1

As technology evolves, the line between what’s natural and what’s enhanced gets blurrier by the day. In my lifetime, I believe human augmentation will become a defining force, shaping not only how we live but also how we define what it means to be human. It’s exciting, but it also comes with some heavy questions about ethics, identity, and balance.

In the coming decades, I see augmentation advancing in areas like brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), genetic editing, and next-generation prosthetics. BCIs, for example, could let us directly connect our brains to devices, making controlling technology as simple as a thought. Genetic editing tools like CRISPR might allow us to enhance physical abilities, improve mental sharpness, or even eradicate diseases. These breakthroughs will likely begin in specialized fields like medicine or elite professions, but as the technology matures, they could become as common as smartphones.

When it comes to my own choices, I think I’d be open to enhancements that improve health or expand on existing human capabilities. For instance, a neural implant that helps with focus or memory could be a game-changer—not just for learning but for navigating life’s challenges. Similarly, augmentations like advanced prosthetics or vision enhancements feel practical and empowering, offering solutions to real-world problems without compromising human authenticity.

But there’s a limit to how far I’d go. I draw the line at technologies that fundamentally alter what makes us human, like manipulating emotions, suppressing individuality, or creating dependencies that take away our ability to think or feel independently. To me, humanity is rooted in our imperfections—our ability to adapt, to connect, and to grow through challenges. Augmentations that erase those qualities might make us “better” on paper, but they would also make us less human.

As we move forward, I believe the key will be finding balance. Human augmentation has the potential to empower, but it also comes with the risk of redefining who we are in ways that may not align with our values. For me, the goal is clear: to embrace the possibilities of progress while ensuring that the essence of humanity—our ability to think, feel, and connect—remains intact.

I definitely believe that within my life time there will be many breakthrough innovations, especially when it comes to human augmentation. If we think about the technology we have today it stills blows my mind how we have computerized glasses, AI powered arms, and even the development in CRISPR gene editing. With the help of AI, I think that we can definitely create more efficient pieces of equipment that can better mimic human body parts. Of course, I do have my doubts as well. While someone may come up with groundbreaking augmented machinery in my lifetime, I do not think I will ever see it being implemented in health care until way after my life time. I think this is because of the extensive trials and experiments that must be conducted to make sure these enhances are safe for human beings. The human body is a very complicated and intelligent piece of work, and as of right now I do not see any life time solutions regarding augmented replacements. The body’s rejection rate for foreign objects is very high, so the patient will be on immune suppressant medication for a long time or until the augmentation needs to be changes.

Another thing that I hope to see in my life time is more studies on CRISPR gene editing. One of my biggest fears in life is Dementia and Alzheimers, mainly because it runs in my family. It’s a very sad disease to have or to experience a loved one having, and I hope that in the future we as a scientific community will be able to have enough information about our genes and our cells to pinpoint the cause for it. As the video above stated, CRISPR as we know now does not have the power to cure this disease because there is too much risk and too much unknown variables. For example, the Tau genes are microtubule stabilization proteins that when degraded or mutated can begin to aggregate, forming plaques inside of your neuronal cells. The key question is then: Is Alzheimer’s disease caused by the destabilization of the microtubule signaling network or is it from the numerous tau plaques invading the cell space? I wish in the future we can work together to find cures for diseases such as Dementia and Cancer. I also want to emphasize the importance of transparency of the health community to the population especially during the pursuit of finding cures or augmentations. I believe that the next 4 years will be extremely rocky for the education system, justice system, and the health system. But I can only hope that these trials the next 4 years will bring to us will allow us to become stronger together. Maybe this is me being too optimistic, which is ironic given the class revolves around Cyberpunk, but when it comes to healthcare I can only hope that we can start prioritizing curative medicine over maintenance medicine. But in this capitalistic society, as Johnny Silverhand from Cyberpunk 77 so eloquently put it …