Tag: Technology

The Future of Corporate Power

Olivia S.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The cyberpunk genre has long been a fascinating lens through which we explore the dark potential of corporate power. Through its narratives, we encounter megacorporations whose greed and influence often override ethics, governments, and even humanity itself. By analyzing examples such as the Tyrell Corporation from Blade Runner, the Tessier-Ashpool family in Neuromancer, and the “pill funders” in Machinehood, we confront chilling portrayals of unchecked corporate dominance. But are these scenarios plausible futures or exaggerated critiques of our current trajectory?

Corporate Power in Cyberpunk: A Glimpse into Dystopia

In Blade Runner, the Tyrell Corporation exemplifies corporate overreach. It is a monolithic entity with near-total control over artificial intelligence and robotics. Tyrell’s replicants, humanoid robots designed for labor, demonstrate the moral compromise inherent in a profit-driven ethos. The corporation’s disregard for the ethical implications of its technology echoes concerns in contemporary AI and biotechnology sectors. Similarly, in William Gibson’s Neuromancer, the Tessier-Ashpools are a wealthy and isolated family who control a massive conglomerate. Their pursuit of immortality and power through artificial intelligence creates a world where human individuality is subservient to corporate goals.

Lastly, Machinehood by S.B. Divya introduces the “pill funders,” corporate entities controlling pharmaceutical and biomechanical enhancements essential to daily life. These companies dictate who has access to resources, exploiting desperation for profit. Their stranglehold on healthcare resonates with modern concerns about pharmaceutical monopolies.

This image was created on ChatGPT on Nov 27, 2024. https://chatgpt.com/c/67477bc2-2978-8010-b7df-4172e8b2e2e5

Modern Parallels: Reality or Exaggeration?

Many of these cyberpunk tropes feel disturbingly relevant. Consider the influence of contemporary tech giants like Amazon, Meta, and Google. These corporations not only dominate their industries but also shape global infrastructure, public discourse, and even privacy laws. In 2021, Amazon was criticized for using algorithms that prioritized efficiency over worker safety, drawing parallels to the dehumanizing labor systems seen in Blade Runner.

Pharmaceutical companies also bear a resemblance to Machinehood’s pill funders. The opioid crisis, exacerbated by aggressive marketing and lobbying by corporations like Purdue Pharma, demonstrates the deadly consequences of profit-driven healthcare. Similarly, the monopolization of insulin production has led to life-saving medication being priced out of reach for many—a direct echo of cyberpunk’s dystopian critiques.

However, these depictions can also feel hyperbolic. For all their faults, many corporations do face public and governmental checks, particularly in democratic societies. Regulations like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and increased antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. indicate that corporate power, while significant, is not absolute.

Are We Heading There?

The question remains: are we truly on a path to the corporate dystopias of cyberpunk? The answer lies somewhere in between. While cyberpunk narratives provide valuable critiques of corporate greed and unchecked power, they often amplify reality to provoke reflection and action. They remind us of the dangers of complacency in the face of growing corporate influence. Presently, we see these exploitative conditions in big corporations, such as Apple, that have led to dystopian-like conditions in the Congo due to greed for materials like cobalt and uranium, used to make iPhones and other Apple products.

By engaging with these narratives and drawing parallels to our world, we are equipped to challenge harmful systems before they solidify. As the line between fiction and reality blurs, it becomes vital to question, regulate, and resist structures that prioritize profit over humanity.

For further reading, explore the following resources:

The corporate dystopias of cyberpunk are not inevitable, but they serve as a stark warning. The future depends on our vigilance, resistance, and insistence on ethical practices that prioritize humanity over profit.

What do an Author and Music Artist Have in Common
 Societal Revolution!

Lavell A.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Both Donna Haraway’s essay “Cyborg Manifesto” and Janelle Monae’s album “Dirty Computer” share a similar tone in their message.  They challenge the societal norms regarding what really defines human identity.  Through their pieces, they blend aspects between humans and technology producing numerous additional possibilities on how one would view themselves.  In turn here, the goal both creators seek to achieve is to inspire people to feel comfortable with showing their true selves even if there are others that may oppose you.  Be who you really are.

            To start us off, Haraway’s cyborg is designed to blur the societal boundaries placed on human and machine and the binary gender roles of male and female.  The idea of being found in between any of these roles are uplifted instead of shot down which takes us to Monae’s album where that is the whole central idea.  Those who are termed “Dirty Computers” are the same people that defy the societal norms.  The cyborg identity is designed to be adaptable and limber (easily shaped or changed).

            The difference between the two pieces is that Monae’s album depicts the side that sees this freedom as unlawful much more than Haraway.  Haraway mainly focuses on the relationship of the cyborg resembling that of liberation.  Monae adds more worldbuilding to her story to signify that even though personal change is good and should be celebrated, everyone doesn’t think the same way.  Her character is being fully persecuted against by the authorities of her world, because she wanted to be more than what society would allow.

            Both ladies all together hope to share a hopeful tale in which no matter whomever it concerns should truly become one with themselves.  Your identity shouldn’t be restricted by other people or governmental identities and if they are in any way, you should stand up for yourself and what you believe in.  Embrace your fluidity. Celebrate it.  And live beyond the limitations set before you.

Evolving Beyond Nature

Olivia S.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

As someone aspiring to be a tissue engineer, I am particularly fascinated by how biological and technological advancements will shape our health, longevity, and quality of life. In my lifetime, I believe human augmentation will advance significantly, blending biology and technology to redefine our potential. From medical enhancements like prosthetics and implants to cognitive and sensory upgrades, the trajectory of innovation suggests profound changes in how we interact with the world and ourselves.

The future holds exciting possibilities in both bioengineering and technology. Tissue engineering, for instance, could lead to creating custom organs grown from a patient’s cells, minimizing the risk of rejection and ending reliance on donor shortages. This is a field that I am particularly interested in making an impact in. Beyond medical needs, advancements in biomaterials might allow the development of muscle-enhancing or bone-strengthening augmentations. Neural interfaces, like brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), could expand cognitive abilities, improving memory, creativity, or problem-solving skills. Sensory enhancements might allow us to perceive wavelengths of light or sound beyond the human spectrum, fundamentally changing how we experience the world.

This image was generated by ChatGPT on November 23, 2024. https://chatgpt.com/c/6742c2b0-03c0-8009-8aab-afc6882003c7

I would embrace augmentations aligned with health, productivity, and enhancing human experience. As a tissue engineer, the ability to repair or replace damaged tissues and organs using bioengineered solutions would be incredibly fulfilling. This could aid in treating patients suffering from the long-lasting effects of substance abuse as well as complications from cancer treatments. For myself, I’d consider integrating augmentations that improve bone and muscle strength/recovery as I, sadly, tend to have bad joints. Of course, there are enhancements in this field that I do not believe should be explored.

Ethically, I believe certain boundaries must be upheld. Modifications that compromise individuality or autonomy, such as permanent BCIs controlled by corporations or governments, are unacceptable. Genetic enhancements solely for aesthetic or superficial traits raise concerns about societal pressure, inequality, and the loss of diversity. This can create a heirarchy that beniefits the rich and demeans or disenfranchises those who cannot afford this. A great example of this would be in the movie Gattaca (for those who don’t know this movie here is the trailer). Ultimately, augmentations that are irreversible, unsafe, or exclude large portions of society due to cost or access disparities would exacerbate existing inequalities, which is contrary to the inclusive goals of medicine and technology.

From the perspective of a future tissue engineer, the implications of augmentation also carry responsibility. The technology we develop must prioritize improving lives while respecting ethical principles. Tissue-engineered solutions, for example, should focus on restoring health and function rather than creating an unnecessary hierarchy of abilities.

This image was generated by ChatGPT on November 24, 2024. https://chatgpt.com/c/6742c2b0-03c0-8009-8aab-afc6882003c7

Human augmentation holds incredible promise, but it must be guided by ethical considerations to ensure inclusivity and fairness. As someone entering the field of bioengineering, I see a future where science empowers us to overcome diseases, disabilities, and even natural limitations without compromising our humanity. By focusing on augmentations that enhance life in meaningful, equitable ways, we can ensure this evolution remains a force for good. To learn more about the ethics of tissue engineering, take a look at this paper published by The Journal of Applied Tissue Engineering.

The Future of Human Augmentation: Redefining Humanity in the 21st Century

Jaylyn J.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

In our lifetime, human augmentation is likely to progress far beyond today’s wearable technologies like fitness trackers and heart rate monitors. The future will bring innovations that not only enhance convenience but also save lives. For example, wearable defibrillators could detect cardiac emergencies and administer life-saving treatment autonomously. Similarly, prosthetics might evolve to integrate directly with neural pathways, restoring lost functions or even granting superhuman abilities. These advancements could redefine the boundaries of human capability, blending biology and technology in unprecedented ways.

Physical enhancements could also go beyond healthcare. Imagine contact lenses that display augmented reality information or exoskeletons that enhance physical strength and endurance, supporting workers in demanding jobs or assisting those with mobility impairments. These possibilities open doors to extraordinary improvements in quality of life while pushing us closer to the edge of what nature originally intended for humanity.

However, I believe human augmentation should be approached thoughtfully and sparingly. While I would consider adopting technology essential for survival—such as life-saving implants—I would hesitate to embrace enhancements aimed solely at achieving perfection or convenience. The essence of being human lies in our imperfections, our adaptability, and our ability to navigate challenges without fully surrendering to technology.

As human augmentation advances, it will also force us to confront societal and ethical questions. Who will have access to these technologies, and will they widen the gap between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot? Will governments or corporations regulate how far augmentation can go, or will individuals have the freedom to push the boundaries? These are critical issues that must be addressed as we integrate these innovations into our lives. Ensuring that augmentation is equitable and used to improve lives—rather than exacerbate inequalities—will be essential for creating a future where technology enhances humanity as a whole.

For me, the line is crossed when augmentation compromises core aspects of our humanity. Technologies that risk my life unnecessarily or make me feel disconnected from my natural self are unacceptable. At its best, human augmentation should amplify what makes us unique rather than diminish it.

I think we should proceed with much caution when it comes to human augmentation because it can include a dangerous future.

https://images.app.goo.gl/6hK1cahnXMNe2Yvs8

Above shows a picture of how wearable technology have evolved so far.

The Developing Link Between Man and Machine

Lavell A.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

            To stay in the lines of the cyberpunk genre for this class, I wanted to talk about the ever-changing boundaries between humanity and technology.  Everyday technology is becoming more and more advanced as seen by the increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) in society.  For example, nowadays people are using AI technologies such as ChatGPT, OpenAI, and DALL-E for anything from helping out with research, creating full-on noncopyrighted images, giving people life advice and basically information for anything that the mind can think of.  AI’s primary focus used to be for solving mathematical calculations or processing data, but as one can see, it has since shifted into a far more creative tool, performing tasks that were thought of to be only capable of by humans.  Another example is that there is even AI music out here.  There is AI out here winning actual awards for creating songs and that were even capable of mimicking the voices of popular artists (some who are even deceased).  The problem today is that with AI being able to make all of these different forms of media, lots of laws are being put in place and/or adjusted to answer the discontent of artists’ worry of copyright of their work.  In all I think that this level of change of how technology is implemented by society was bound to occur sooner or later.  Humanity is always looking forward and are never at rest especially when it comes to tech.  We’ve had these ideas of AI, robots, and cyborgs for decades now.  The only reason that I would say that they don’t already purely exist yet is because we just haven’t fully figured it out yet (not including all of the views of whether these inventions would be considered wrong or right). If you were to ask what I thought about these changing times with AI, I would say that it is indeed interesting and I am excited to see what the future has in store for society.

Cybernetic Reality

Rudy W.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Technological advancements are among the main driving forces behind societal progression. Biomechanical innovations in particular, are currently being improved and developed to enhance the quality of life for individuals who may face disabilities that impair their ability to function to their fullest capabilities. Bionic organs, artificial joints, and highly advanced prosthetic limbs are a few examples of human augmentations that aid in improving the health and wellbeing of individuals in society. 

While we have made great strides in human augmentations, I believe we will see a shift in focus at some point in my lifetime. As a society, I believe we are at the point where biomechanical innovations are being researched and developed to improve the quality of life for those who are in need which is extremely important. Having this second chance at life lays the foundation for a more equitable society. However, I think it is likely that these innovations will begin to shift gears and focus more on extending life rather than improving it. Improving quality of life will not completely be abandoned, it will just become less of a priority. Realistically, I highly doubt that physical augmentations will be a prioritized development aside from improving enhancements to ones appearance such as anti aging.  

In addition to extending life spans, I believe that human augmentations will enter the digital realm, where humans will have the ability to have computer interfaces installed so their brains are able to operate as computers. The internet is such a broad place that allows one to have information essentially at their fingertips. Having a device implanted in the brain, which already exists as a highly complex organ could redefine humanity as we know it. Humanity would begin to learn towards posthumanism due to humans becoming decentered and identities being intertwined with that of a computer. 

 I would be willing to try adaptations on a needed basis. As it stands currently, I have never considered surgical enhancements because the idea of enhancing myself through an unnecessary procedure seems illogical. If I was facing an illness and needed a bionic organ to save my life I would be willing to test it out however, I would not do so unless absolutely necessary. I believe there is a great risk associated with technological innovations. If there was a brain implant device created such as the one aforementioned, I would opt out of receiving it. Technology is constantly evolving and the idea of having to constantly update yourself as one would do to a cellular device seems tricky. 

The only adaptations that I would view as unacceptable would be the ones in which only the rich are able to access them. In order to move towards a more equitable society, innovations that allow individuals to extend their life or merge their brains with computers must become accessible for every individual regardless of their socioeconomic standing. If not, society will become dystopian and the divide between the rich and the poor will be exacerbated.

Pushing Limits: How Human Augmentation Could Change Our Lives

Amanda F.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Technology is advancing at an incredible pace, and ideas that once seemed like science fiction are becoming real possibilities. In our lifetime, human augmentation could evolve in ways that completely change how we live, work, and interact with the world. From enhancing physical abilities to boosting mental capacities, the potential for human augmentation is enormous. However, with these advancements come important questions about what changes we would accept and where we might draw the line.

One of the most exciting areas of human augmentation is physical enhancement. Future technologies might include biomechanical limbs that are stronger and faster than natural ones or exoskeletons that give people superhuman strength and endurance. Another possibility is genetic editing, which could help eliminate diseases or improve overall health. These types of augmentations could significantly improve quality of life, especially for individuals with disabilities or chronic conditions. Imagine a world where people with physical limitations could regain full mobility or where genetic tweaks could prevent diseases like cancer or Alzheimer’s before they ever start.

Mental augmentation is another area that could redefine what it means to be human. Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), for example, could allow people to interact directly with technology using their thoughts. These advancements might make it possible to improve memory, focus, or even learn new skills instantly. For students like me, a neural implant that enhances focus or helps store long-term information could be life-changing. These technologies could also open up new ways to work and create, making everyday tasks more efficient and less stressful.

While these possibilities are exciting, there are certain augmentations I would feel comfortable adopting and others I would reject. Personally, I would be open to technologies that improve my health or expand my natural abilities in ways that feel practical and non-invasive. For example, I would consider using augmented reality (AR) contact lenses to overlay useful information or genetic edits to prevent disease. Neural implants that boost memory or focus also seem like reasonable options, as they could enhance everyday productivity without fundamentally altering my identity.

On the other hand, there are certain types of augmentation that I would avoid because they cross a personal or ethical boundary. For instance, I would not be comfortable replacing large parts of my body with artificial components, as this could compromise my sense of humanity. Similarly, I would reject the idea of genetic editing for purely cosmetic reasons, such as changing physical traits or creating “designer babies.” These types of changes could deepen social inequalities and raise difficult ethical questions. Finally, I would avoid technologies that alter consciousness or upload the mind to a computer. While fascinating in theory, these concepts challenge the very idea of what it means to be a person.

In addition to personal preferences, the broader implications of human augmentation must be considered. Who will have access to these technologies, and how will society prevent them from increasing inequality? If only wealthy individuals can afford these upgrades, it could create a world where the gap between the “enhanced” and the “non-enhanced” becomes insurmountable. There is also the question of how much control we should give to corporations and governments over these advancements. These are critical issues that need to be addressed before human augmentation becomes widespread.

In conclusion, human augmentation has the potential to transform our lives in remarkable ways, offering new opportunities to overcome limitations and enhance our abilities. However, it also raises important ethical and personal questions about what it means to be human and how we can use technology responsibly. For me, the key is finding a balance—embracing changes that improve life while being cautious about those that might strip away our humanity. As we move forward, society must navigate these challenges carefully to ensure that human augmentation benefits everyone and aligns with our core values.

Blade Runner and the Corporate Future: A Vision Becoming Reality?

Jaylyn J.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Blade Runner hit the big screen in 1982, it offered a dystopian glimpse of the future, complete with towering corporate skyscrapers and a cityscape dominated by neon and perpetual rain. This world is the Tyrell Corporation, a creature responsible for manufacturing the genetically engineered replicants. The company’s slogan, “More human than human,” encapsulates its eerie fusion of power and ambition. But as we take stock of our contemporary world, the big question looms: Are today’s corporations inching toward the Tyrell blueprint? Or is Blade Runner a hyperbolic critique that can never be fully realized?

First, consider the Tyrell Corporation itself. It’s a monopoly of staggering proportions, wielding influence over life and technology. In our world, we see echoes of Tyrell in real-life tech conglomerates. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Meta possess an astonishing level of control over information, commerce, and communication. The development of generative AI, facial recognition, and advancements in biotechnology are increasingly blurring the lines between human and machine, mirroring Tyrell’s world of near-human replicants. For instance, Boston Dynamics’ lifelike robots or Neuralink’s brain-machine interface experiments are striking reminders of Tyrell’s once-fictional vision.

But does this mean we are truly headed toward a Blade Runner reality? Let’s think about the concern.

On one hand, the growing privatization of what were once considered public domains—such as space travel, with Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin—suggests that these tech giants are expanding in ways previously unimaginable. The consolidation of data and wealth grants these corporations influence comparable to that of small nations. And yet, the dystopian setting of Blade Runner serves as a hyperbolic warning rather than a direct prediction. Tyrell’s world is exaggerated to jolt us into self-awareness, to make us wary of unchecked corporate power.

Still, in our time, there are significant safeguards—government regulations, whistleblower protections, and an increasingly vocal global citizenship—that work to reduce monopolistic abuse. These checks aren’t fail-proof. Climate change, for example, reveals the tension between corporate profit and environmental responsibility. Think of how companies market eco-friendly practices, sometimes more for PR than genuine impact, echoing the superficial gloss of Tyrell’s “advanced” society.

Ultimately, Blade Runner serves as a thought experiment rather than a clear map to the future. Yet, as corporations continue to shape our world, the film’s themes remind us to remain vigilant and reflective. If nothing else, the story tells us that progress without accountability can indeed become a dystopian nightmare—and that’s a lesson we shouldn’t dismiss lightly.

This post is a response to a challenge set, as a result of Task 2, by Frank Polster, a fellow course participant on Stephen Downes’ MOOC, E-Learning 3.0. https://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2018/11/09/e-learning-3-0-the-human-versus-the-machine/

Beyond Biology: The Ethics of Human Enhancement

Makeda M.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Throughout this class, I’ve explored complex questions about human augmentation, from the boundary-shifting nature of working from home to the limits of merging humanity with technology. Considering the evolving landscape of human augmentation, I envision options arising that seem right out of science fiction—enhancements that blend our biological selves with digital and mechanical systems, allowing people to transcend physical and cognitive limitations. The question, though, is not just “Can we?” but “Should we?”

Depiction of human augmentation.

I think accessible augmentations will focus on improving everyday life, including implants that enhance memory retention, devices that monitor and adapt to our mental and physical health in real time, and sensory improvements like augmented vision or hearing. These feel like natural extensions of devices we already rely on (phones, wearables), and I could see myself experimenting with technology that boosts my cognitive efficiency or helps manage health.

However, there are limits to what I’d be comfortable with. The potential for invasive neural implants or gene-editing enhancements aimed purely at “upgrading” humans sits on a moral fault line. Such adaptations risk reinforcing social inequalities, creating a divide between the augmented and non-augmented. As someone with a background in public health, I see how disparities in access to healthcare already affect vulnerable communities. Unequal access to these technologies could deepen these gaps, turning what should be human improvement into a new form of discrimination.

I’m open to augmentations that preserve and protect my natural abilities. For example, using technology to manage health conditions is acceptable. But I would reject enhancements that alter my identity or biological essence—anything that risks turning me into something fundamentally different from the person I am today. We will all have choices about the type of augmentation we accept, and those choices will reflect our values and identity. My personal line lies where technology starts to replace what it means to be human instead of enhancing it. Navigating these choices will require us to consider not only the benefits but the ethical and social impact on our society and our sense of self.

Breaking Boundaries: When the Sky Knows No Limits

Luci S.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Imagine a world where technology enables us to transfer traits from one animal to another, merging the best of both. If I could choose, I would select the qualities of an eagle. Eagles represent honesty, truth, majesty, strength, courage, wisdom, power, and freedom—attributes that humanity sometimes lacks. They see the world from a perspective we can only dream of.

What draws me to the idea of being an eagle? The ability to fly and view everything from a different angle captivates me. Imagine soaring to visit family whenever I wanted! Unfortunately, today, many people focus more on power and money than on honesty and truth. If everyone had just a bit of the eagle’s spirit and prioritized honesty, we could create positive change.

In this hybridized form, I wouldn’t want to lose my humanity entirely. A healthy combination of human and eagle traits would be ideal. I would cherish the eagle’s strength, honesty, courage, wisdom, power, and freedom, but I also want to retain the social connections, emotions, and intellect that define my humanity. For example, having wings would allow me to explore the world in a way that no human can. Traveling great distances in just hours and experiencing nature from a completely new viewpoint.

“Another Eagle Photo” by vladeb is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0.

The question arises: how much of my human nature would I be willing to give up? I would say enough to embrace the eagle’s strengths and freedoms fully. These days, we are so restricted and often impose limits on ourselves where there may not even be any. If we had the opportunity to possess the characteristics of eagles, it might show us that there are no limits at all. It would push the limits of what’s possible and experiencing the world through a thrilling new lens.

This journey wouldn’t just be about gaining new abilities; it’s about reimagining what it means to live.