Author: Anthony J.

Redefining Human Potential: My Take on the Future of Augmentation

Anthony J.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

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.

Are We Facing a Corporate-Dominated Future?

Anthony J.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

In the world of cyberpunk narratives, corporations often appear as unstoppable forces, prioritizing profit at humanity’s expense. From the omnipotent Tyrell Corporation in Blade Runner to the shadowy Tessier-Ashpools in Neuromancer, and the exploitative “pill funders” in Machinehood, these stories caution us about the unchecked power of corporate greed. But is this dystopian future plausible, or are these tales hyperbolic warnings meant to provoke deeper thought?

Take the Tyrell Corporation—more than just a business, it embodies the power to create life, manufacturing replicants that blur the line between human and machine. This depiction warns of the dangers when profit-driven ambitions override ethical boundaries for technological advancement. Similarly, the Tessier-Ashpools in Neuromancer are an insulated, ultra-wealthy family that controls advanced AI, highlighting the dangerous disconnect between powerful elites and societal needs.

In Machinehood, the “pill funders” epitomize corporate exploitation by controlling the very substances people need to survive and adapt in a hyper-tech world. These narratives share a common theme: when corporations prioritize profit over people, societal stability crumbles, with technology benefiting a select few while the majority struggle.

While these stories may seem exaggerated, they resonate with real-world trends. Consider tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Meta. These companies wield unprecedented influence—not just in the marketplace but also in shaping public policy, public behavior, and global communication. Amazon’s near-monopoly in e-commerce and logistics underscores how one corporation’s reach can impact millions of jobs and consumer choices. Google’s dominance over information dissemination raises significant questions about data privacy and the concentration of knowledge.

The pharmaceutical industry’s actions during global crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, also mirror the “pill funders” in Machinehood. High prices, patent protections, and profit-centric strategies restricted access to life-saving treatments, echoing the cyberpunk fear that corporate greed can outstrip human welfare.

Is this path toward corporate dominance an inevitability? While it’s easy to dismiss cyberpunk stories as extreme, reality is not far removed. The concentration of corporate power and the speed of technological advancement suggest that these narratives might be more prophetic than we’d like to believe.

However, this outcome isn’t set in stone. Regulatory oversight, public advocacy, and responsible innovation can act as checks to ensure that technological progress benefits society as a whole. Without proactive measures to prioritize human well-being over profit, we risk inching closer to the futures depicted in these cautionary tales.

Overall, Cyberpunk fiction serves as a timely reminder of the potential pitfalls of corporate overreach. While stories like Blade Runner, Neuromancer, and Machinehood may exaggerate aspects for dramatic effect, they contain grains of truth that reflect our present-day challenges. The direction we choose now—whether to accept the current trajectory or push for a fairer balance between profit and public interest—will shape our future.

For those interested in exploring these parallels further, analyses of tech monopolies, AI ethics, and automation’s impact on labor are essential starting points. Documentaries and discussions on corporate influence and AI ethics can also enrich our understanding.

Let’s continue this conversation: Are we headed toward a world where corporate control goes unchecked, or will society push back and redefine what progress means?

Heart of the Dolphin: Seeing the World Through Sound and Connection

Anthony J.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

If I could blend with any animal, I’d choose the dolphin—not just for its agility in the water but for its extraordinary echolocation, intelligence, and unique approach to connection. Dolphins communicate through clicks, whistles, and even sonar, which creates a shared understanding that goes beyond words. This ability to “see” with sound and to navigate the depths with precision resonates with how I’d like to interact with the world: tuned into subtle layers of understanding, moving fluidly through life’s currents, and building connections that reach deeper than just surface-level.

I wouldn’t want to become fully dolphin—no fins or complete aquatic adaptations—but I’d like the gift of echolocation. Imagine navigating complex social and intellectual situations with an inner radar, sensing things most people miss. Beyond the physical trait, I’d embrace the dolphin’s playful resilience and sharp intelligence, which it uses to build relationships and overcome challenges. This hybridization would mean viewing the world with a keener sense of empathy, depth, and an intuition that’s deeply tied to my environment and the people around me.

The real trade-off here would be in shifting how I process and relate to the world. Would I be okay with sacrificing the straightforwardness of human language for the abstract nuances of sonar-based perception? I think so. But I’d want to retain my own emotions and ability to reason. The human side that values nuance and individuality would still need to be there; I wouldn’t want to lose my curiosity or drive to express myself as an individual.

At the core, this choice to become part dolphin is about embracing a mode of being that’s sensitive, intelligent, and attuned to others, but still human enough to carry a unique voice. I’d gain a new way to “see” the world, navigating life’s depths with the purpose and depth dolphins embody so naturally.

Sacrificing Privacy for Connection: Where Do We Draw the Line?

Anthony J.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

There’s a common belief that you can’t have everything without giving something up. When it comes to privacy in our tech-driven world, that “something” is often a piece of ourselves. But the reality is, true privacy is almost impossible to achieve. Between GPS tracking, card transactions, public surveillance cameras, and our constant online presence, maintaining total privacy would mean giving up nearly everything that makes life convenient.

To achieve true privacy today, you’d have to disappear entirely—ditch your smartphone, move to an off-grid cabin, avoid any form of technology. But at what cost? Personally, I’m not willing to sacrifice connection for total privacy. I’d rather live in the world as it is, knowing there are trade-offs. Whether it’s Google Maps helping me navigate, or keeping my iPhone to stay in touch with people, I accept that certain privacy is lost for the sake of convenience.

But, like most people, I’m still cautious about how much of my privacy I’m willing to trade. Social media, for example, is one area where I feel like I can control the narrative. Using it as a personal photo album, I’m consciously choosing what I share. Sure, there’s a risk, but the payoff—having my memories preserved and easily accessible—makes the trade feel worth it. I think that’s where the line gets drawn for me: if I’m in control of what’s shared, it feels like a reasonable exchange.

What makes me uneasy, though, is when that sense of control slips away. Dystopian scenarios, like the ones we see in films, where every action is monitored and privacy is nonexistent, hit a little too close to home. And as much as we like to think we still have some privacy, the reality is, the more connected we are, the more we give away. There’s this unsettling feeling that we’re slowly moving toward a world where privacy is just an illusion, and when that balance tips too far, it becomes a real problem.

For those of us who grew up in the post-9/11 era, the idea of having less privacy is almost second nature. We barely question it. It’s baked into our everyday lives—surveillance, tracking, monitoring. It’s hard to imagine a world where this wasn’t normal. But if we’re sacrificing privacy for the promise of safety, we have to ask ourselves: is that safety real, or just another illusion?

Blurring Gender Boundaries: The Rise of Non-Binary Recognition

Anthony J.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

In recent years, one of the most prominent shifts we’ve seen is in the boundaries surrounding gender identity. What was once a rigid binary—male or female—has increasingly evolved into a spectrum, with growing recognition of non-binary identities. Over the past five years, many countries, organizations, and social platforms have begun acknowledging and validating identities that don’t fit within traditional gender norms. This shift is evident in policy changes, such as the introduction of “X” markers on passports in the U.S. and the increasing use of gender-neutral pronouns like “they/them” across workplaces and social media platforms.

This change reflects a broader societal movement toward inclusivity, driven by activists, influencers, and everyday people who have pushed for the recognition of diverse gender identities. The expansion of our understanding of gender is supported by ongoing conversations about personal identity and the limitations of the binary system that many found restrictive. The internet and social media have also played significant roles, creating spaces for people to share their experiences, educate others, and build communities around gender inclusivity.

The shift in gender boundaries has been prompted by a combination of factors. One is the rising visibility of non-binary individuals in popular culture, such as celebrities and public figures like Sam Smith and Demi Lovato, who openly discuss their experiences with gender fluidity. These conversations have made it more accessible for people to understand and engage with the concept of non-binary identity. At the same time, the rise of gender-neutral language and inclusivity training in workplaces and schools is part of a larger push to dismantle traditional systems of oppression tied to gender roles and expectations.

While there is still much work to be done, the blurring of the male-female boundary in recent years reflects a more nuanced understanding of gender that goes beyond biological or societal categories. As more people embrace the idea that identity is personal and fluid, we are witnessing the collapse of yet another boundary that once seemed absolute.

Breaking the Binary: Haraway’s Cyborgs Meet Monáe’s Dirty Computers

Anthony J.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto (1985) imagines a future where traditional identity categories—like gender and race—break down, allowing for fluidity and freedom. Haraway’s cyborg transcends binaries, existing outside the confines of societal norms. Janelle Monáe’s 2018 album Dirty Computer builds on this vision, using the “dirty computer” as a metaphor for individuals who refuse to conform to strict, limiting identities. Both works challenge us to rethink what it means to be human in a world that punishes non-conformity.

In Dirty Computer, Monáe presents a dystopian world where “dirty computers” are persecuted for their difference, echoing Haraway’s cyborg—a figure that rejects being neatly categorized. Tracks like “Pynk” and “I Like That” celebrate the fluidity of identity, particularly around gender and sexuality, which resonates with Haraway’s vision of a post-gender world. In Haraway’s theory, the cyborg is free from biological and social limitations. Similarly, Monáe’s music encourages a celebration of self-definition outside of societal constraints.

Monáe’s approach, however, also explores the darker side of technology. In her world, technology is a tool of control, used to erase memories and force individuals into conformity. This duality—where technology can both liberate and oppress—is central to both Haraway’s and Monáe’s work. While Haraway’s cyborg uses technology to break free from old systems of power, Monáe shows how those same tools can be used to reinforce them.

Monáe’s album, and its accompanying “Emotion Picture,” presents a clear parallel to Haraway’s vision. The “cleaning” process in Dirty Computer is symbolic of society’s attempts to erase non-conforming identities—whether through social exclusion, legal restrictions, or outright violence. In this world, technology doesn’t just control bodies, it controls minds, erasing the very memories that make individuals unique. Monáe’s character, Jane 57821, resists this process, reflecting Haraway’s idea of the cyborg as inherently rebellious, existing outside societal boundaries and resisting erasure.

Ultimately, both Haraway and MonĂĄe envision futures where identities are fluid, boundaries are broken, and the binaries that define us begin to dissolve. Their work invites us to consider a world where non-conformity is celebrated, and where the future is shaped by those willing to resist being boxed in. They push us to embrace the complexity of identity and challenge systems that seek to define and limit who we are.