Reading Time: 2 minutes

In Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto, she envisions a world where identity is not fixed by traditional categories such as gender, race, or sexuality, but is instead flexible and shaped by technology. She imagines the “cyborg” as a hybrid being, one that is not limited to binary thinking and traditional systems of power. This idea connects with the themes in Janelle Monáe’s Dirty Computer, which portrays a dystopian future where individuals who don’t conform to societal norms are persecuted, particularly those who deviate from traditional gender roles or sexual identities.

Monáe’s album is a strong statement of self-empowerment and resistance against a world that seeks to control and define people. In tracks like “Pynk” and “Make Me Feel,” Monáe celebrates fluidity in sexuality and gender, breaking down the binaries that Haraway critiques in her manifesto. Just as Haraway imagines a future where technology can help dismantle restrictive identities, Monáe uses her music as a platform for self-expression that challenges norms. The metaphor of the “dirty computer” speaks to a body that is “corrupted” or “imperfect” by societal standards, yet this imperfection is what makes it human and powerful. It matches Haraway’s idea of the cyborg, which rejects the notion of perfection and natural ideals in favor of a more hybrid and, ultimately, free existence.

The story in Dirty Computer reflects Haraway’s criticism of the restrictions placed on gender and sexuality. In songs like “Django Jane,” Monáe reclaims her power and space, both as a woman and as a person of color. This is a theme that mirrors Haraway’s call to break down traditional power structures. Monáe’s depiction of a persecuted group in Dirty Computer directly mirrors Haraway’s warning that systems of domination, whether through gender, race, or technology, often rely on rigid categories to maintain control. In Monáe’s world, non-conforming individuals are labeled as “dirty” or “outlaws,” much like the cyborg rejects the boundaries set by society.

Ultimately, Dirty Computer offers a musical interpretation of Haraway’s cyborg. Both works question the concept of identity as something static and instead embrace fluidity, technology, and resistance as pathways to a more liberated existence.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

In Janelle Monae’s 2018 album, Dirty Computer, Janelle positions computers as analogous to humans, highlighting the rigid nature of both. Both this album and Haraway’s concepts, challenge traditional gender, sexuality, and race roles within human beings using the “human v machine” debate as a closer look into this. Janelle mainly uses the term “dirty computers” to describe a computer that has a bug or virus in it. Translating this to humans, this would mean any human that does fit the societal mold of what it means to be perfect. And perfect for Janelle is a white straight man. Haraway deems the cyborg as something similar: the rejection of what it means to be a perfect human. There are binary constraints that a cyborg cannot adhere to, and similarly, neither do humans who were born “different”. In this case, the narrative of it being  “bug” is a positive to Janelle and she does not shy away from celebrating her differences. To Haraway, the only way to liberate hybridity is to reject the societal notions and constraints that lead to this. 

In the beginning of “Crazy, Classic, Life” Janelle offers her rendition of the declaration of  independence by declaring “That all men and women are created equal”. This particular lyrics then challenges and confronts the lack of female inclusion without society, culture, and politics in documents that have become the backbone of America. If America will not include her, then Janelle would force it to. It is this unabashed opinion that mirrors the exact critique Haraway has on the power behind the patriarchal structures in our society. Janelle also unwinds the intersectionality between her race and gender by comparing her stress as a black woman to the stress her afro undergoes when it is forced to be “pressed”. Hairstyles in the African American community is ranked favorably paced in its vicinity to white hairstyles. Women who often walk out in their natural hair are seen as messy and unkempt. Haraway similarly rejects this one-sided privilege whether it be gender or race that is being exhibited. In “Django Jane”, Janelle attempts to “take back the narrative” from white men. Using the metaphor of a computer, she opts to rewrite her own future and identity.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Both Blade Runner (1982) and Neuromancer (1984) are seminal works of the cyberpunk genre, celebrated not only for their aesthetic but also for their deep exploration of societal decay, individual identity, and the consequences of unbridled technological advancement. By intertwining themes of urban sprawl and corporate dominance with human struggles for freedom, both works serve as profound critiques of the technological future.

In Blade Runner, Ridley Scott explores humanity’s relationship with artificial beings—replicants—raising questions about what it means to be human. The replicants’ rebellion against their pre-programmed lifespans highlights the ethical dilemma of creating life that is both sentient and disposable. The world of Blade Runner, with its polluted skies and overcrowded streets, reflects the cost of corporate greed. The Tyrell Corporation’s motto, “More Human Than Human,” reveals the ultimate irony: technological progress, meant to improve humanity, has instead commodified and dehumanized it. This dystopia is not just visual but moral, where the ethical boundaries of artificial intelligence are routinely crossed.

Similarly, William Gibson’s Neuromancer delves into the digital frontier of cyberspace, where the line between human consciousness and artificial intelligence is blurred. Case, the novel’s protagonist, navigates a world dominated by corporate entities, whose control extends into the digital realm, dictating the lives of individuals both online and offline. The artificial intelligence Wintermute, central to the story, underscores the tensions between autonomy and control, illustrating the dangers of creating systems that outgrow human oversight. Beyond its digital innovations, Neuromancer interrogates the human cost of these advancements, with characters like Molly, a cyborg enforcer, embodying the physical and psychological toll of technological enhancement.

Both works move beyond their dystopian visuals to critique the larger systems of power and control. The cities of Blade Runner and Neuromancer symbolize more than physical decay; they are reflections of a world where corporations dominate, technology perpetuates inequality, and individuals struggle to maintain agency in an increasingly dehumanized society. Together, these texts warn of a future where progress prioritizes profit over people, challenging readers to reconsider the ethical limits of technological innovation.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

SUGAR SCROLLERS

In the digital age, connection has become a commodity. Few understand this better than the leaders behind social media platforms. Companies like Instagram, TikTok, and X have built empires on algorithms designed not just to connect us, but to consume us. Every swipe, every like, every comment is a calculated act of seduction, pulling us deeper into a world where satisfaction is fleeting, and the next dopamine hit is just another scroll away.

You’ve felt it, haven’t you? The innocent urge to check your phone “for a minute” that stretches into hours. Social media doesn’t just invite us in; it ensnares us. These platforms exploit our psychology, turning curiosity into compulsion. It’s a subtle form of control that feels eerily similar to the “pill funders” in Machinehood, a novel where corporations create dependency on enhancement drugs. In our world, social media companies do the same, feeding our need for validation while trapping us in endless cycles of consumption.

Algorithms: Curating Reality, Shaping Identity

At first glance, social media algorithms seem harmless, even helpful, curating content that aligns with our interests and emotions. But here’s the cost: reality itself gets narrowed. The endless feed becomes a hall of mirrors, reflecting only what we already believe or crave. Over time, this isolation fosters echo chambers, distorting our perception of the world and deepening our feelings of loneliness.

For many, the curated feed becomes a constant comparison game. Everyone else seems happier, more successful, more fulfilled. This distorted reality feeds anxiety and depression, especially among young people. Studies show that prolonged social media use is linked to poor self-esteem and mental health. Just like Machinehood’s pill funders profit from reliance on enhancement drugs, social media platforms profit from our need for digital validation, exploiting our vulnerabilities to keep us scrolling.

The Mental Health Toll

The race for engagement has made mental health collateral damage. Platforms push “doomscrolling” content—negative news, polarizing debates, and sensationalized stories designed to trigger emotional reactions. It’s not a bug; it’s the system working as intended. The result? Chronic stress, mental fatigue, and a lingering sense of despair.

The “like” button, once a harmless novelty, has morphed into a reward-and-punishment system that shapes our behavior and self-worth. We’ve become reliant on digital applause for satisfaction, much like the characters in Machinehood depend on productivity drugs. But instead of feeling fulfilled, we’re left emptier, chasing the next fleeting hit of validation.

Today’s Pill Funders

In Machinehood, the pill funders create dependency under the guise of productivity and necessity. They control society by exploiting human vulnerabilities, selling solutions to problems they’ve manufactured. Swap pills for algorithms, and the parallel is striking. Social media platforms cultivate our dependency by exploiting our need for connection, belonging, and relevance.

We’re told to “engage” and “connect,” but in reality, we’re feeding the algorithm. Every click fuels the machine, and every second we spend scrolling lines the pockets of those who profit from our attention. We’ve become both the consumer and the product, trapped in a loop that’s as addictive as it is exhausting.

Breaking the Cycle

So how do we reclaim our lives? It starts with awareness and intentionality. Set boundaries. Turn off notifications. Curate your feed to prioritize content that uplifts rather than drains. Just as we’re mindful of what we eat, we need to be equally mindful of what we consume digitally.

Tech companies have a moral obligation to design platforms that prioritize well-being over profit, but waiting for them to act could take a lifetime. For now, the responsibility is ours. We must navigate these digital spaces with caution, understanding that algorithms are not built to fulfill us—they’re built to use us.

In a world where social media dominates, the power lies in our ability to pause, to question, and to choose. Much like the pill funders in Machinehood, social media companies exploit our vulnerabilities for profit. But unlike the characters in that dystopia, we still have a choice. We can look up, step away, and reclaim our lives—one mindful decision at a time.

Let’s make that choice. Let’s be more than consumers of endless feeds. Let’s be humans, present and intentional, in a world that needs us to look beyond the screen.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

If I had the opportunity to be a hybrid, I would embrace a form that reflects the delicate balance between nurturing and challenging, protecting and empowering. Imagine a life where the rhythm of the sun and moon dictates my transformation—a seamless shift between human and eagle. By day, I embody the empathy and connection of humanity, offering guidance and comfort like the warm embrace of a safe haven. By night, I ascend into the skies as an eagle, becoming a silent protector and wise motivator, watching over those I care for with unyielding vigilance. This duality wouldn’t just be a fantastical change of form; it would represent a journey of growth—a reflection of the stages of life itself, where strength is born from vulnerability, resilience is forged through challenge, and freedom is realized by taking flight.

     In the human form, my role is to provide comfort and guidance, much like an eagle lines her nest to shelter her eaglets. During the day, I offer a safe presence to those around me, using empathy and connection to foster a supportive environment. My human interactions are marked by the desire to nurture, ensuring that those I care for feel secure and understood. This stage reminds me of the gentle care that builds the foundation of growth, a reminder that true strength often begins in moments of vulnerability.

      At night I transform into an eagle, my role shifts from comfort to challenge. Just as a mother eagle removes the soft lining of the nest to encourage her young to stand on their own, my eagle form allows me to distance myself and observe, providing a perspective that encourages independence. I watch from above, ready to intervene if needed, but knowing that growth requires discomfort. This stage emphasizes the importance of resilience and the courage to step out of one’s comfort zone.

      In the eagle’s form, I urge those I care for to reach their potential. My presence is both a quiet encouragement and a reminder of the strength they carry within. I am there, hovering like the mother eagle who flaps her wings to push her eaglets out of the nest. This form of motivation, silent yet powerful, instills a sense of readiness, inspiring others to embrace the heights they’re meant to reach. As an eagle, I embody the call to action, urging others below to discover their wings.

      When moments of danger arise, my eagle form becomes a shield. Like the mother eagle that catches her young when they falter in flight, I stand ready to defend those who are not yet fully prepared to be independent. With heightened senses and physical agility, I can swiftly respond, ensuring that those under my care are safe. This protective instinct balances the push for growth with the assurance of security, showing that empowerment can coexist with guardianship.

      As dawn approaches and I return to human form, I witness the impact of this cyclical journey. Those I have nurtured, challenged, motivated, and protected are now capable of standing on their own, confident and resilient. My dual existence, shifting between human empathy by day and eagle vigilance by night, allows me to foster growth and security in equal measure. This hybrid transformation is a reminder that true guardianship is about empowering others to become self-sufficient, to find their own wings and take flight.

       In choosing the eagle as my hybrid form, I embrace a rhythm that honors both the nurturing and the fierce sides of this animal the comforting and the challenging. This duality reflects the complex nature of growth—requiring  shelter, discomfort, encouragement, protection, and ultimately, the freedom to soar. It is a journey that celebrates the strengths of both human compassion and eagle resilience, proving that to guide and protect, one must sometimes transform, rising above and learning from our environment, again and again.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

As we have already seen, human augmentation has, so far, been mostly used as a positive. It has focused on allowing people who have disabilities to have the same processes as those without one. For instance, cochlear implants have helped many hear better. It is important to note that these augmentations do not make them “superhuman”, which means they do not go “beyond” what it means to be human. This is mostly to do with the unethical nature that these experimentations must have, as well as the need to define what would make a human “better”. In the particular instance of eugenics, this has been widely discussed.

When babies are born with certain disabilities, it does not take away from their autonomy as a human being. However, in society, as we’ve seen with MAID policies in Canada, they are often denied good care or help from society until medically-assisted death seems like the only option. When one comes up with the idea to genetically modify sperm in order to create a “favorable” human being, all it will do is continually cause inequality in reality. What is favorable? Is it based on height? Looks? Race? Who will get access to these facilities? Unfortunately, as time passes, it seems that eugenics is becoming a possibility in many people’s minds. That, in my eyes, is completely unacceptable.

People might then argue, isn’t changing your body to add tails or horn also disfiguration? In my eyes, if it does not give you an extreme physical upperhand, then I do not care. What is the difference between that and getting insane piercings and cutting your tongue. People dislike it because it goes against what they view as a “socially acceptable human” but I only care about if something goes against a biological view of what it means to be human. There is no need for prosthetics that go beyond human capabilities in my eyes, and we cannot bite the hand that feeds us. If we begin to explore what it means to distance ourselves from being human by these techniques, then we can turn to the vast amount of media that proves this to be a terrible idea. Society is not equipped for another factor that could aid in inequality or discrimination