Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein haunts discussions of recent technologies.
Does anyone notice in what extent the technology affect to us? Think about what if we don’t have mobile phone one day? We would probably feel insecure and nervous as if we do not exist that day. And, Frankenstein is a classic sci-fiction novel, boosting our imagination of the effect in our technological life. Here are five writings which help us to think about the horror of technologies in different aspects: politics, sciences, ethics, humanities, futures. Nearly, all of these approaches except sciences required us to criticize the development of technology for the sake of avoiding technology disordered while we highly depend on it. The issues of ‘democracy’, ‘human cloning’, ‘genetic food’, ‘dehumanization’, and ‘AI’ would be discussed, which told us to take it seriously without naïve mind. It is because the earlier we sense the consequences of Frankenstein; the more we could do to prevent it.
According to Shari Poen’s article, Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein’s Problem (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Technology),
we could see his emphasize on the technology as a metaphor of ‘tools’ have too much ‘power’ to affect our view of looking the world. We are living in a ‘techno-culture’, in which it does not mean that we should take a negative view of the emergence of technology, but need to pay attention to the way technology would arrange our lives unpredictably. Frankenstein is a creation that symbolize the technologies that could not receive the ‘sufficient care’ just like we use it without critical and analysis manners. Besides, he questioned about whether the democracy could continue to be exist in the lacking of ‘critical technological citizenship’. The emerging of ‘deskilling’ and ‘surveillance’ would cause, although technology could fulfill our wants, it could not wholly free us without ‘democratic practices’. It has been suggested that the real monster is not Frankenstein (technology), but the evil mind that allows these happen. To avoid this, we are required to critically deal with the ‘noir’ side of technology with ‘adult’ mind of using it.
There are a lot of upcoming technologies generating debate on their usage and existence in human’s living or even alters our fate. In the article of The Curse of Frankenstein has revealed different stand point of creation of genetic food, but it tends to support the invention of it. It has been stigmatized by environment activists as “Frank food”, the word is embodied from Frankenstein, which closely relates the story of Mary Shelly about the fear of the scientist monster. The author hereby tends to emphasis this is just a ‘myth’ of Frankenstein to give an excuse for the science and technology haters. There are several negative discourses about these foods in no evident supports or most of them were unknown. But, environmentalists have stood firm to their sense of the altered foods would cause harm to us and the environment under the ‘genetic manipulation’. In order to lessen the fear of the science and technology, FDA imposed rules to reassuring the safety of genetic food. Actually, the invention of this technology helps much in farming. In the perspective of farmers, this technology is a magic in dealing with the difficulties of harvesting. Therefore, a total rejection of the primitive fear of technology of genetic foods is needed rather than constant regulations on biotechnology in ‘anti-science campaign’.
However, the emergence of advance technologies is not actually a good thing. It has been argued that the medical technology in the deepest level could be seen as the way to the process of ‘dehumanization’. It has been claimed that one of the ‘human qualities’ is the decision to death. In the writing of Dehumanization, the author alleged the medical technology would dehumanize four basic human abilities, including ‘the inherent of worth in being human’, ‘the uniqueness of the individual’, ‘the freedom to act and the ability to make decisions’, and ‘the equality of status’. Human is treated as an ‘object’ under the ‘medicalization’ when he is dying. Sometimes, we could not be seen as individuals, instead of it, we are cyborg, because some patients should rely on the ‘life-sustaining machine’. It just likes the scientist monster ‘Frankenstein’ that we could not have a very clear distinction. There has been a ‘death-denying culture’ boosted with the development of these ‘impersonal systems’ to manage our health.
In the writing of Thinking Through the Ethics of Cloning, Dr. James F. Drane collects different ethical interpretations of different ethical experts on this big ethical issue, human cloning. But his comment on it is not focus on the rightness of cloning but the fact of the possibility of both good and evil of human being. The fear of evil human attitudes is the main concern. Here are ethicists who speak for their view on this issue. One of the ethicists, literary ethicists has taken a critical stand point on cloning, and Frankenstein is the first novel which provides the negative assessment on it. Their ethical view point on cloning are reflected in the literature works, stated that it is ‘unnatural’. And other ethicists like religion and government have the same reflection with literature. Pope’s view has already rejected any use of technology which interferes with sexual reproduction within marriage. However, scientists and business take optimistic view of the cloning. They suggested many advantages of cloning on either view of protect diseases or business prospects. The most fairness commentary should be addressed to bioethicists, setting strict guidelines on both cell genes intervened on human beings and human cloning. This genetic technology raised us the questions on ethics of human being.
Eventually, I would like to predict that consequences of long-term advancements of technology by analysis the history of technology which affects our life deeply. In Frankenstein of the Future, Alison Burns has a critical analysis on the future of human life in the technological world. He emphasizes what human do with technology is a ‘blind’ act. The creation of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ could lead the opening of a ‘Pandora’s box of monstrosities’ in which just like Victor Frankenstein did with his monster. The author argued that it causes serious result if the machines are given the ability to ‘learn’. He used the sci-fiction ‘Matrix’ to illustrate the uncontrollable result of technology dominate the world. Also, AI was symbolized as ‘children’ and we human as ‘parent’ who has the responsibility to teach them. Nor bearing a child, or bearing a more destructive and powerful child, AI is easy. By looking backward of the history of technology development, from 1940’s invention of first computer to today’s system which can imitate human thought, the ability of the machine has transcended human, like ‘best human chess player’. Nowadays, we depend on ‘smart machines’ which could replace jobs of human , this ‘dependence’ is not revealing our power to master them, but the hidden shocks it bring to life.
There will be a rapid growth of advance technology which has been predicted. We somehow become cyborgs, just like the nature of Frankenstein because of certain reliance on technology; gradually ‘techno-culture’ and ‘death-denying culture’ are boosted. Someone would think Frankenstein is a legend in which there are no evidence to prove it, even though technologies help us in many ways, there are a lot of bad speech has been discussed in the level of ethics, politics, humanities and futures. The common view that came up with is that we should be considerate its effects on our future life. The fear of Frankenstein is not because of the advance technology, but the bad intentions of the human who use it.
References:
Shari, Poen. (1998). 'Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein’s Problem' (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Technology)
http://www.viterbo.edu/analytic/Vol%2019%20no.%201/thinking%20through%20tecnology.pdf (accessed 1 March 2009)
Tracinski, Robert W. 'The Curse of Frankenstein' http://www.capitalismcenter.org/ProTech/Archives/Curse_of_Frankenstein.htm (accessed 1 March 2009)
(2007). 'Dehumanization' http://www.deathreference.com/Da-Em/Dehumanization.html (accessed 1 March 2009)
Drane, James F. (2002). 'Thinking Through the Ethics of Cloning'
http://www.uchile.cl/bioetica/doc/think.htm (accessed 28 February 2009)
Burns, Alisa. (2002). 'Frankenstein of the Future' http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/frank.comment4.html (accessed 1 March 2009)
Friday, March 6, 2009
Critical Annotated Webliography - Q.3
Q3. Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein haunts discussion of recent technologies.
Victor Frankenstein, as a scientist who created the monster Frankenstein, has the unrealistic and absurd imagination on the biotechnology. It is hard to imagine a dead body with separate organs can have vitality through the galvanization. Recent technologies like the genetic engineering, human cloning and other scientific contributions are inspired by this monstrous idea. However, Victor’s failure of controlling Frankenstein has raised people’s attention on the fear of technology, alerting them the dangerous lurking in the shadow of technology.
First, it is needed to understand what the fear is. The article Technophobia: A disease in disguise gives a clear concept of how people are getting “fear of technology or technological devices”. The author has used daily examples to illustrate the inseparability between human and technologies, such as the frequent use of computer and pagers. Human will feel bushed with technology when they cannot follow the rapid development of technologies. Their psychology will be imbalanced and the human nature will be altered after suffering from technophobia. The author has also concisely listed out some symptoms of technophobia, including that people will find excuses the needless of new technologies and argue against the transformation of technologies.
To have a further discussion on fear, Daniel Chandler’s article Fear of losing control particularly calls in question on the position between human and technologies as well as emphasizes the seriousness on the outcome of losing control of technologies. He has mentioned the relationship between human and machine is being confused. The reason human feel fear is from the “possible harm that from machinery out of control”, which has “double aspect of good/harm”, just like fire can give warm to people but burn them as well. Chandler has used some movies to give concrete explanation on the loss of control. For example, the robots appeared in the film Westworld are “out of control for no apparent reason”. In A Space Odyssey, the computer has some abnormal behaviors that it has killed the human under its own decision making. From these examples Chandler clearly gives rise to the concern of the future technology.
Alisa Burns has elaborated the risks of technology in her article Frankenstein of the Future. Unlike Chandler’s view, Burns raises that the dangerous part of technology is the scientist blindly requests for “bring to life” as well as creates something that can threat the whole universe without careful consideration. She has used Victor Frankenstein to explain technologies are something with unexpected and uncontrolled consequences. But the most fearsome Burns emphasizes is that the machines “are indicating the ability to learn”. She mentions Artificial Intelligence, the system that can imitate human thinking, understand what people talk about and compete with human, to warn that scientists underestimate the system. She uses the movie Matrix as an example, illustrating the serious consequence of artificial intelligence transcend human intelligence, which the former one takes control of the human at the end.
The article Stem Cells and Human Cloning: The Postmodern Prometheus gives a positive perspective on providing a useful background information of the evolvement of human reproduction and the process of technological fertilization of human egg cells, which proves that science can achieve the “Frankenstein-like event”. The discovery of molecular biology helps investigation on cell development and study the possibility between fertilized egg and human body cell. The less unlikeness between body cell and fertilized egg push biotechnology to an upper level. The article then cites the instance of Louise Brown, the first baby who was born via in vitro fertilization, to give a strong support on assisted reproduction. In further investigation, the transgenic food and animals are invented as well. The article also lists out different arguments on assisted production and human production. For example, Professor Leon Kass is against assisted reproduction as children become artifacts.
Dave Weldon’s perspective is counter to human cloning. In his article Why Human Cloning Must Be Banned Now, it gives a clear explanation on the violation of human cloning. He has noted the reasons of banning research and reproductive cloning in ethical angle. First, research cloning may need to sacrifice the people live in order to see the result, which is immoral. Second, human is being treated as a tool to help the scientist to accomplish their experiment, which is unethical as well. Finally, the scientists will take advantage of women in the research cloning process. Since those scientists need a great number of women’s eggs for creating cloned embryos, the injection of superovulatory drugs into women’s bodies are needed. Infertile will be the extreme side effect. Weldon’s fear comes from these predictable outcomes. Besides, he also provides biological explanation on the danger of human cloning. He mentioned that some “undetectable but harmful genetic abnormalities” will torment the human clones, which do not have possible method to solve this problem in the present. To directly solve the problem, Weldon’s suggestion on terminating “the creation of cloned embryos” is useful for considering the possible solution on forbidding the reproductive cloning in order to relieve the fear.
The article Will Frankenfood Save the Planet? is helpful to make argument on biotechnology in different aspects. The author Jonathan Rauch first uses examples to illustrate the economic and technological advantages of transgenic crops for those farmers, helping them to have huge production and become affordable on the massive market demand. “The selective transfer of genes from one organism to another” allows the scientists cultivate the crops without the affection of soil quality or plants’ habit. Rauch then uses statistics to points out the environmental damage made by the transgenic crops, especially the habitat destruction. Because of the profitability, the farmers extended their farmland by felling the forest. The effect is indirect but powerful.
Bouneith Inejnema has used biological angle to expose the dangers of genetically-modified (GM) food by using research in his article Frankenstein Foods Cause organ Abnormalities. He has stated the current situation inside the market. With the massive production of GM food, the consumers cannot make differentiation between the products. Although GM producers, like Monsanto, declare that GM food do not endanger human health, a research have exposed the diverse outcome after eating it. The report has presented that “rats fed genetically modified com had smaller kidneys and variation in their blood composition”, which supposed to happen on human body as well. The author also mentioned that those foods cannot be safe even they have been tested on animals. The fear showing in here related to the harm of human health brought by technology.
From the articles, it can see the interrelation between Frankenstein, human and technology. It is true that science and technology have significant contribution on biotechnological development. However, the negative outcome of Frankenstein food and human cloning has raised people’s attention on the Frankenstein myth, elaborating the fear of technology and its loss of control. Apart from the biotechnological issues, the ethical problem is also an important aspect in the discussion. Excessive invention and dependence on technology will unbalance the nature and artificial practice. It is essential for the human to utilize the technology appropriately.
References:
Alisa Burns “Frankenstein of the Future”. http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/frank.comment4.html (accessed 26 February 2009)
Bouneith Inejnema “Frankenstein Foods Cause organ Abnormalities”. http://www.theearthcenter.org/ssgmfoodsorgans.html (accessed 25 February 2009)
Daniel Chandler “Fear of losing control”. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/SF/sf04.html (accessed 26 February 2009)
Dave Weldon “Why Human Cloning Must Be Banned Now”. http://www.cbhd.org/resources/cloning/weldon_2002-spring.htm (accessed 26 February 2009)
Jonathan Rauch “Will Frankenfood Save the Planet?”. http://www.uri.edu/mind/Frankenfood%202%20October%202003%20Atlantic%20Monthly.pdf (accessed 25 February 2009)
Samrat Ray (2008) “Technophobia: A disease in disguise”. http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=148360 (accessed 26 February 2009)
“Stem Cells and Human Cloning: The Postmodern Prometheus”. http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol114/Chap14/clone.html (accessed 25 February 2009)
Critical Annotated Webliography_Q.2
Question 2: ‘When the body is fractured into organs, fluids, and genetic codes, what happens to gender identity?’ (Balsamo). Discuss some of the issues raised by the Visible Human Project about the embodiment gender, race and class.
The Visible Human Project (VHP) is originally a medical and scientific project. However, this guiding question requires something different which is about the issues of embodiment gender, race and class. From the question by Balsamo, it shows that how the gender identity will be once the body is being fragmented. The relevant resources about VHP which is being discussed in this track are mainly based on feminism. By the feminist articles, some of them show how they interpret and understand the issues of race and class raised by the VHP. Here they are in the following,
Firstly, the content of the Visual Human Project (VHP) is being illustrated into several parts in ‘The Visible Human Project: Data into Flesh, Flesh into Data’. It is well for providing some background information for the discussion topic since it draws heavily on talking about the history and the process of how a cadaver to become visualized in the computer screen. It offers the link directly to visiting the Visible Human Project in The National Library of Medicine website. Also, it mentioned that the first person who was willing to donate the body for the study was a male prisoner and the second one is a female who is dead by heart attack. Besides these historical backgrounds, it gives about some scientific methods in managing the cadaver such as the exact think of length for the cadaver that being cut. Garry suggests that this project reinforced the concept of life and takes the sexual variations into account but the authors disagree with it as it is not effective enough to eliminate the heterogeneity. This article provides a transition from the background information to the aspect of gender and easily for people to have further and deeper discussion on this topic.
The VHP is being discussed in relation to the feminist issue within the article – ‘Wild Science: Reading Feminism, Medicine and the Media’ by Janine Marchessault. By using three main parts which are the Corporeal Map, Genetic Codifications and Clinical Practice, the author reveal the ideas towards these issues from the perspective of feminist media studies. The key point from the ‘Corporeal Maps’ can be picked up. It illustrates and pays much attention in the cadaver that is being represented by the media in a scientific way which is being fragmented such as the breasts and uteruses in women's bodies. The increase in the fragmentation of the dead female body shows the continuity of subordination of women’s role within the society and people paid no concern for the western women. It also helps to challenge the fragmentations of women in the cyber world. Since it is being exemplified as institutions and practices and emphasized heavily on political and social issues by the scientific way of representation. These ideas give some good supporting on how the gender issue raised by the VHP and help with developing the body part of the whole essay.
In the third article, ‘Notes on the Political Condition of Cyberfeminism’ by Faith Wilding and Critical Art Ensemble provides some supporting resources to talk about the gender issue much deeper and being as a transition to talk about the class. One of the supporting evident is that the part of the cyberfeminism affect the society in a political and economical way by several changes in technology ( the Visible Human Project is one of the examples) can be well in illustrating the change in gender. Also, it also mentions how the female to react to these the phenomenon of the technological changes. The point is useful to be marked that the gender needs to be diversified because of the gender struggle in the cyberspace. And also the invasion of cyberfeminist into various technology cracked down the myth of male dominate within society. Women are liberated because of the technoworld. It even benefit the women from subversion of the original gender structure. It implied that the class of women increased and advantaged by the increase in occurance in cyberspace and the VHP is one of the examples. As mentioned, these advantages are gained through the class, cultural and the race position. So, this article can be functioned as a transition paragraph from discussing about gender into the class.
To have further discussion towards the class struggle between male and female, this article, ‘Iatrogenic Permutations: From Digital Genesis to the Artificial Other’ by Tama Leaver, tries to explain the implications behind the Project in the feminist perspective. Regarding this article, the novel Permutation City and The Visible Human Project are being analyzed comparatively in order to figure out their common factors and the important theme share among the theme. The useful part is that Sarah Kember suggested that the VHP should be viewed as the recreation of the Eve and Adam in cyberspace. The first visible human female is being sent to the Project shows that the productivity of women is the same as male in the aspect of the male-dominated medical science. An inspiration can be got from this article as the author brings up a good question which can inspire me to have further research on the guiding question. The question that is being raised it that the questioning of human subjectivity identity and embodiment under the new biomedical and technological advances. So, this article indicates the new aspect on discussing the increase in the female status in the technology advancement.
The ‘Fractured identities’ in ‘A Cyborg Manifesto’ by Donna Haraway can well be used in demonstrating well in the race issue raised by the VHP. It is related to the point mentioned by the author in this article that is she politically overthrow the boundary by the using the cyborg hybridty in order to strive for the ‘fairness’ in the identity. As the VHP established and kept running in America, this is a place where the seriousness of racism occurs. The cadavers used in the Project are both Caucasians in both genders. She suggested ‘Women’ is being constructed and are controlled tightly by colonialised, patriarchal and capitalized society. In the article, from the concept of ‘women of colour’ by Chela Sandoval which is mentioned in this article shows us that the black women is still being discriminated. It is because the theory of the anti-colonialism. It implied black women have no say as all the feminists are Caucasians. Not only does the author rejecting the patriarchal society, but also the Caucasians’ feminism. She indicates that the ambiguity between the advancement of biology and technology (the VHP) which causes the world is being signified. Haraway suggested that ‘we’ are cyborg and only cyborg functions as a tool to get rid of the integrity of the patriarchal society and it will hybridize. This article is a very useful resources in order to challenge the possible race issue raised by the Project by the arguments made by Haraway on the above.
In short, these five critical articles and journals are the useful and relevant resources as far after other many irrelevant resources are being filtered. These 5 resources could be found based on the further research on some resources that mentioned little about the VHP in the aspect of culture studies and women’s studies. Five of them can be able to support the guiding question about the 3 aspects raised by the VHP.
Bibliography
Catherine, Waldby. (1996) ‘The Visible Human Project: Data into Flesh, Flesh into Data’ Communications Studies, Murdoch University, http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/VID/wildbiol1.html. (accessed 27th Feb 2009).
Donna, Haraway. (2008) ‘A Cyborg Manifesto’. European Graduate School EGS, Media and Communications Division. http://www.egs.edu/faculty/haraway/haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto.html . (accessed 1st March 2009).
Faith, Wilding. & Critical Art Ensemble. ‘Notes on the Political Condition of Cyberfeminism’ Critical Art Ensemble, http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors/wildingtext.html (accessed 26th Feb 2009).
Janine, Marchessault. & Sawchuk, Kim. (2002) ‘Wild Science: Reading Feminism, Medicine and the Media’ Canadian Journal of Communication. Vol 27, No 4 (2002).http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1334/1391 (accessed 1st March 2009).
Tama, Leaver. (2004) ‘Iatrogenic Permutations: From Digital Genesis to the Article Other’ Comparative Literature Studies, Vol. 41, No.3 (2004). http://www.tamaleaver.net/cv/TL_CLS_41.pdf (accessed 1st March 2009).
Living with Frankenstein?
Topic:
Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein haunts discussions of recent technologies.
Frankenstein was created by a scientist by using dead animal organs, corpse limbs and dead brain to build its body. It was revived by lightning which violated the natural order to create a life form. It became a monster and had its freewill to find means to meet its ends. It had its own thought to kill his creator and became a killer. This idea was developed in the 19th century from the book written by Mary Shelley. From then on, human beings became doubtful to the development of technologies and aroused a lot of worries about new technologies.
Technophobia can be defined as the fear and dislike of technologies by human beings. No one can consider or bear the consequences brings to our world towards the development of technologies. According to the article titled “Frankenstein in the University,” the author mentioned that in modern days, we are encountering technologies in a daily bases. Although, we think that we can fully control our technologies, there are still a lot of uncertainties. For example, we do not know when our computer will break down and cause data loss. As we are now relying so much on technologies, there is a fear of technological determinism. It means that technologies could determine our lives and it also means that we could not survive without technologies. The author used online distance learning and software as examples to elaborate his point of view. The operation of an online course and information system require the use of technologies. If the technologies become unavailable, the operations will halt. To put it into our daily lives, for example, to cure serious illness, we have no alternatives but to rely on technologies to fight against disease and survive. It could easily put us into a dilemma between technophobia and reliance of technology.
An article written by Shari Popen titled “Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein’s Problem” mentioned about the fear of development of new technologies. In this article, the author points out that the use of technologies is having goods and bads. First of all, the article is about the changing of our identity and the replacement of human labors by cyborg technologies. Secondly, the writer concerns that human beings are now highly depend on technologies and not care about how technologies have shaped our lives. And, therefore, a series of questions are asked by the author which are concerning the technologies, for example, the development of artificial intelligence(AI) which allows computer to think. If computers really thought and human were not paying attention to them, it created risk because computers could have dominated our planet and human could extinct. Then, the development of technologies might be similar to the science fiction genre film Terminator which was a story in the 1980s showing the machineries dominated the world and sought human as their major enemy. Such concerns are not ungrounded as we could not fully control our new technologies and we do not know the consequences of such development. The cloning technology can be an example as it creates a lot of questions.
Dolly the sheep was the first successfully cloned mammals and she was announced to the world in 1997. From the two articles titled: “Experts detail obstacles to human cloning” and “Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of Frankenstein,” both mentions about Dolly the Sheep as an advance in human bio-technology. However, there is a question on her age because she was cloned from the cell of a mature sheep. Her genes may automatically program her age as a six years old mature sheep which was the same as the mother sheep. The US Government had quickly response to this issue and recommended law should be enforced to prevent the abuse of cloning technology. From then on, Genetic engineering then becomes an important issue discussed by scientists. Many scientists are arguing about the cloning of human. Most of them reject the cloning of human as cloning violates the natural order as the cells of the clones are identically the same as the originally existing person. It creates a moral problem. Moreover, the development of the clones has had a lot of uncertainties because scientific experiments could not foresee the consequences. Only one question was answered when Dolly the sheep died in 2003 in her early age proved that there were a lot of unexpected results in cloning.
Although, the cloning of human is restricted, the artificial creation of animals is still carrying on. In the article by Dr. Wayne Garland which titled “FRANKENSTEIN FOOD – SEND IN THE CLONES” talks about the concern of eating cloned animals and their products. The meat and the milk of cloned animals are claimed to be as normal as the naturally born animals. However, environmentalists are saying that the consequences of eating cloned animals are unpredictable and hazardous without any scientific prove. Also, animals’ welfare organization blamed the cruelty of creating cloned animals through scientific method because it sometimes creates deformed organisms. Moreover, consumer should have their rights to choose what they eat. If they are really concern about eating cloned animals, they should have a choice. Therefore, it is necessary for the manufacturers to label the food that comes from cloned species.
There are counter arguments which promotes cloning and new technologies. As the world is facing population explosion, the shortage of food becomes a critical problem. It can be solved by modern technologies, for example, the massive use of fertilizers and pesticides or development of the genetic food to increase farm production. From the article by Alan Caruba which titled “The Advocates of Technophobia” claimed that early technologies development could create a lot of concerns. He used electricity as an example. In his article, he mentioned that the invention of electricity was beneficial to human. However, it was not used massively when it was very first developed because people were afraid of it. It is mainly due to the work of Frankenstein. So, we are now in the same situation. The environmentalists who blame on the use of modern technologies in food production, such as genetic food, are the result of science fiction and created technophobia towards new technologies. In my point of view, science fiction does not create technophobia. Technophobia is a product from human uncertainty towards the future. To further explain, it means that if we know the consequences of such technologies, there will be no obstacle when applying them to our daily lives.
To conclude, Frankenstein was an idea developed in the 19th century. It was the first idea which showed human phobia towards technologies. Although, people were afraid of creating a Frankenstein in the reality, it did not really haunting the development of technologies. In modern days, technologies are developing as fast as they could, such as cloning. We can see that Frankenstein is not haunting our technological development. And, because of Frankenstein, human beings are more aware during technological development to prevent any terrible mistakes and utilize resources to control new technologies.
References:
"Frankenstein in the University -- Campus Technology." Campus Enterprise Networking & Infrastructure -- Campus Technology..
"Experts detail obstacles to human cloning - News Office." MIT..
Bloomfield, Brain P., and Thoe Vurdubakis. "Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of Frankenstein." World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology..
Caruba, Alan. "The Advocates of Technophobia by Alan Caruba -- Capitalism Magazine." Capitalism Magazine - Individual Rights are the Moral Basis of Society..
Garland, Wayne. "FRANKENSTEIN FOOD." Manataka Home Page..
Popen, Shari. "Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein's Problem." Viterbo University..
Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein haunts discussions of recent technologies.
Frankenstein was created by a scientist by using dead animal organs, corpse limbs and dead brain to build its body. It was revived by lightning which violated the natural order to create a life form. It became a monster and had its freewill to find means to meet its ends. It had its own thought to kill his creator and became a killer. This idea was developed in the 19th century from the book written by Mary Shelley. From then on, human beings became doubtful to the development of technologies and aroused a lot of worries about new technologies.
Technophobia can be defined as the fear and dislike of technologies by human beings. No one can consider or bear the consequences brings to our world towards the development of technologies. According to the article titled “Frankenstein in the University,” the author mentioned that in modern days, we are encountering technologies in a daily bases. Although, we think that we can fully control our technologies, there are still a lot of uncertainties. For example, we do not know when our computer will break down and cause data loss. As we are now relying so much on technologies, there is a fear of technological determinism. It means that technologies could determine our lives and it also means that we could not survive without technologies. The author used online distance learning and software as examples to elaborate his point of view. The operation of an online course and information system require the use of technologies. If the technologies become unavailable, the operations will halt. To put it into our daily lives, for example, to cure serious illness, we have no alternatives but to rely on technologies to fight against disease and survive. It could easily put us into a dilemma between technophobia and reliance of technology.
An article written by Shari Popen titled “Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein’s Problem” mentioned about the fear of development of new technologies. In this article, the author points out that the use of technologies is having goods and bads. First of all, the article is about the changing of our identity and the replacement of human labors by cyborg technologies. Secondly, the writer concerns that human beings are now highly depend on technologies and not care about how technologies have shaped our lives. And, therefore, a series of questions are asked by the author which are concerning the technologies, for example, the development of artificial intelligence(AI) which allows computer to think. If computers really thought and human were not paying attention to them, it created risk because computers could have dominated our planet and human could extinct. Then, the development of technologies might be similar to the science fiction genre film Terminator which was a story in the 1980s showing the machineries dominated the world and sought human as their major enemy. Such concerns are not ungrounded as we could not fully control our new technologies and we do not know the consequences of such development. The cloning technology can be an example as it creates a lot of questions.
Dolly the sheep was the first successfully cloned mammals and she was announced to the world in 1997. From the two articles titled: “Experts detail obstacles to human cloning” and “Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of Frankenstein,” both mentions about Dolly the Sheep as an advance in human bio-technology. However, there is a question on her age because she was cloned from the cell of a mature sheep. Her genes may automatically program her age as a six years old mature sheep which was the same as the mother sheep. The US Government had quickly response to this issue and recommended law should be enforced to prevent the abuse of cloning technology. From then on, Genetic engineering then becomes an important issue discussed by scientists. Many scientists are arguing about the cloning of human. Most of them reject the cloning of human as cloning violates the natural order as the cells of the clones are identically the same as the originally existing person. It creates a moral problem. Moreover, the development of the clones has had a lot of uncertainties because scientific experiments could not foresee the consequences. Only one question was answered when Dolly the sheep died in 2003 in her early age proved that there were a lot of unexpected results in cloning.
Although, the cloning of human is restricted, the artificial creation of animals is still carrying on. In the article by Dr. Wayne Garland which titled “FRANKENSTEIN FOOD – SEND IN THE CLONES” talks about the concern of eating cloned animals and their products. The meat and the milk of cloned animals are claimed to be as normal as the naturally born animals. However, environmentalists are saying that the consequences of eating cloned animals are unpredictable and hazardous without any scientific prove. Also, animals’ welfare organization blamed the cruelty of creating cloned animals through scientific method because it sometimes creates deformed organisms. Moreover, consumer should have their rights to choose what they eat. If they are really concern about eating cloned animals, they should have a choice. Therefore, it is necessary for the manufacturers to label the food that comes from cloned species.
There are counter arguments which promotes cloning and new technologies. As the world is facing population explosion, the shortage of food becomes a critical problem. It can be solved by modern technologies, for example, the massive use of fertilizers and pesticides or development of the genetic food to increase farm production. From the article by Alan Caruba which titled “The Advocates of Technophobia” claimed that early technologies development could create a lot of concerns. He used electricity as an example. In his article, he mentioned that the invention of electricity was beneficial to human. However, it was not used massively when it was very first developed because people were afraid of it. It is mainly due to the work of Frankenstein. So, we are now in the same situation. The environmentalists who blame on the use of modern technologies in food production, such as genetic food, are the result of science fiction and created technophobia towards new technologies. In my point of view, science fiction does not create technophobia. Technophobia is a product from human uncertainty towards the future. To further explain, it means that if we know the consequences of such technologies, there will be no obstacle when applying them to our daily lives.
To conclude, Frankenstein was an idea developed in the 19th century. It was the first idea which showed human phobia towards technologies. Although, people were afraid of creating a Frankenstein in the reality, it did not really haunting the development of technologies. In modern days, technologies are developing as fast as they could, such as cloning. We can see that Frankenstein is not haunting our technological development. And, because of Frankenstein, human beings are more aware during technological development to prevent any terrible mistakes and utilize resources to control new technologies.
References:
"Frankenstein in the University -- Campus Technology." Campus Enterprise Networking & Infrastructure -- Campus Technology.
"Experts detail obstacles to human cloning - News Office." MIT.
Bloomfield, Brain P., and Thoe Vurdubakis. "Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of Frankenstein." World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology.
Caruba, Alan. "The Advocates of Technophobia by Alan Caruba -- Capitalism Magazine." Capitalism Magazine - Individual Rights are the Moral Basis of Society.
Garland, Wayne. "FRANKENSTEIN FOOD." Manataka Home Page.
Popen, Shari. "Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein's Problem." Viterbo University.
Frankenstein - how far can our bodies go? (Q3)
This picture could be a good reflection for us – human beings created Frankenstein, is he just some technologized-product, is he a cyborg, or already became part of us ? It’s all begun with Mary Shelley's novel about a brilliant but frenzied scientist constructing a hideous creature from human parts stolen from graveyards. The outcome was called Frankenstein, which is considered as a classic, ugly, lumbering and murderous monster which the book never named. After the novel was published, it had an influence across literature and popular culture, some considered it as one of the very first science fictions and movies. It had also sparked a lot of controversies regarding the over-reaching technologies of modern man, which still affecting nowadays’ discussions of technologies.
Promise and Peril provides some ideas for us to ponder before starting the discussions. The term “Frankenstein”, whether monster, scientist, novel, film, image, or myth is often unclear – whenever some powerful new technology poses risk to humankind or challenges our ideas of what it means to be human. It also provides some more ideas regarding whether the society should balance the benefits of new technological discoveries against ethical or spiritual questions they may pose – for example, biomedical knowledge of tobacco withheld from the public similarly post harm and risks to human beings; or the cloning that whether scientists could hold the kind of power cloning represents proceed without constraint.
Thus there is a term called The “Frankenstein Complex”, which is well explained in the article Countering the Frankenstein Complex. McCauley discusses the“Frankenstein Complex” – meaning the technophobia not against robotics or mad scientists, but of artificial humans, the fear that artificial intelligence would soon overtake humanity and would, inevitably, take control of the planet for one purpose or another. She also points out the possibility of technology misuse and irresponsibility on the part of robotics and AI researchers that, while not resulting in the obliteration of humanity, could be disastrous for the people directly involved. (In this sense, Frankenstein, also stands for the acquisition of scientific power foolishly pursued with the wisdom of the world.) The creation of Frankenstein – technologized the trajectory of living entities through galvanization, had also suggested an open-ended nature of the body’s becoming that worth us to think about.
Responding to McCauley’s article, Imagining Futures, Dramatizing Fears has similar ideas, it argues the notion of ‘knowledge carries risks’, and talked about the fear that people afraid of knowing too much, and may perhaps even fear intelligence. It also discusses the 'The Three Laws of Robotics' first appeared explicitly in a story in 1942 : First, a robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction allow a human being to come to harm. Second, a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. And lastly, a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. These three rules are a kind of ‘safeguard’ for human beings from advanced technologies. (To further understand these rules, I recommend you to watch the movie “i-robot” starring Will Smith).
In this sense, Hollywood and the media had sensationalize and fuel our fears because it makes for an exciting story. Movies like Edward Scissorhands is also a good example of Tim Burton’s take on the Frankenstein story. Edward, who is an unfinished creation, has scissors for hands. In Gothic Genre-Edward Scissorhand and Frankenstein comparison, the author makes a comparison of Scissorhands and Frankenstein regarding Scissorhands plays with the same notions of creation and idea of the monster or ‘outsider’ as Frankenstein did. The different responses of society when faced with these monsters gives insight into societal norms and viewpoints of acceptance- the two ‘monsters’ are abandoned and, seeking company, finds its way into the community. It also lead to associations like whether Frankenstein or Scissorhand should be considered as cyborg or not.
Body Parts That Matter: Frankenstein, or The Modern Cyborg? points out one important misconceptions that Frankenstein is always being considered as cyborg. It explains the differences between the two, for instance, while the cyborg may not function in quite the same ways as Frankenstein monster, it does serve as a precursor to the cyborg. Specifically stating that what Donna J. Haraway writes -“ While the cyborg may not function in quite the same ways as Frankenstein's monster, it does serve as a precursor to the cyborg”. Specifically stating that Frankenstein's creature is not a cyborg, though Frankenstein did occupied a position that opens up the possibility of the cyborg. The article further explains the cybog is a condensed image of both imagination and material reality, the two joined centres structuring any possibility of historical transformation, it is a figure not only for borders, but one involving a certain amount of responsibility. Moreover, the cyborg is not regarded as ‘other’ like Frankenstein was, they are part of us.
Frankenstein is not considered as a cyborg, rather it holds similar controversies as cloning. In Frankenstein vs. Cloning - Man: Created or Creator, it states that cloning is just the modern Frankenstein, that cloning creates something that was not given to humanity. It talks about the possibility of human cloning was raised when Scottish scientists at Roslin Institute created a sheep called "Dolly" in 1997. Since cloning also involves the creation of beings by man, it also sparkled lots of controversies as Frankenstein did. It also tells us the relationship between cloning and Frankenstein, just like when Dr. Richard Seed announced that he was going to start a human cloning clinic, what his opponents called him was "modern-day Dr. Frankenstein." People fear of Frankenstein as well as cloning because a clone is an imperfect imitation of the real thing.
In respond to the previous sites, Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein’s Problem (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Technology) says we are all living in this technological-advanced age that new technologies are inevitable, and they already became part of us. This site provides meaningful outlook for readers to ponder the balance between human and technologies. The author points out that though we are living in an era that scientific, technological dominance over much of our social and economic life, it is important for us to stop focusing in new technologies. Since the author notes, we are creating beings that we are sending out into the world with little concern for how best to include them in the dynamic and changing human community- just as Mary Shelley's novel created Frankenstein but people just have too little concern about what kind of destructiveness technology could bring. Instead, we should pay more attention on how values, ideas, and interests embodied in technologies remain hidden from view becomes a bit less mysterious if we reflect that many technologies take their place comfortably as part of the ordinary everydayness of our surroundings.
REFERENCES
Daniel, C. “Imagining Futures, Dramatizing Fears”, http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/SF/sf03.html (Accessed 26 February 2009)
“Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Creator”, http://harmoniousglow.blogspot.com/2007/06/frankenstein-vs-cloning-man-created-or.html (Accessed 24 February 2009)
“Gothic Genre-Edward Scissorhand and Frankenstein comparison”, http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=33361 (Accessed 26 February 2009)
Harold E. Varmus. “Frankenstein – penetrating the secrets of nature”, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/frankenstein/frank_promise.html (Accessed 23 February 2009)
Lee, M. “Countering the Frankenstein Complex”, http://www-robotics.usc.edu/~tapus/AAAISpringSymposium2007/submissions/aaai_ss_07_id06.pdf (Accessed 2 February 2009)
Robert, W. A. “Body Parts That Matter: Frankenstein, or The Modern Cyborg?”, http://www.womenwriters.net/editorials/anderson1.htm (Accessed 26 February 2009)
Shari, P. “Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein’s Problem (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Technology)”,
http://www.viterbo.edu/analytic/Vol%2019%20no.%201/thinking%20through%20tecnology.pdf (Accessed 24 February 2009)
Source of picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94177846@N00/312296494/
Critical Annotated Webliography (Q.1)
Question 1. Cyborgs are hybrid entities that are neither wholly technological nor completely prganic, which means that the cyborg has the potential not only to disrupt persistent dualism [in language and thought] ... but also to refashion our thinking’. (Balsamo). Drawing on current scholarly work, discuss ways in which the cyborg is still a transgressive figure.
In the past, cyborg is defined as half human and half machine, the idea was initially brought by the United States N.A.S.A for helping to investigate the space. However, the meaning of cyborg has changed via times, it seems that a person who wears glasses, or is too dependent on computer, are also defined as cyborg, I will further explain the new nowadays definition in the following paragraphs. I will also use the sources which I have found to explain how current scholars think whether cyborg is a transgressive figure or not.
Technological Transcendence: Why It’s Okay that the Future Doesn’t Need Us--Thomas Blake
I will first start with how scholars define the word ‘cyborg’. According to Blake, cyborg means an integration of organism and information technology. In the present time, a combination with any kind of technology is also counted as cyborgs, thus he has suggested that people with immunizations or with glasses are considered as cyborg under this sense, but he believes that the above examples cannot really be cyborgs. He thinks a real cyborg is that a human has added some technological devices into his body physically, which is totally combined with the biological body and the owner can control it by himself. Besides, Blake thinks that ethics and human nature are closely interrelated, hence, if a person transforms (change) into a cyborg, the ethics will change as well, because cyborgs are not something of human nature. Furthermore, he claims that cyborgs cannot be considered as ‘he’ or ‘she’, but ‘it’, as it is a thing, not people. However, he also admit when he look at a cyborg at the first time, it seems there is no difference in nature. From what Blake has mentioned, it results that cyborgs are neither human nor machine, they are transgressive.
Fatally Flawed--Greg Halenda
The author has suggested some cyborgs’ characters in four movies as examples, using them to show that general people lean to think cyborgs are transgressive, dangerous and afraid of them, as movies can well represent most of the public’s thinking, especially fear. This online writing can let me to show that cyborgs are still considered as transgressive. As the author, Halenda mainly illustrates that the cyborgs’ characters in Blade Runner, Bubblegum Crisis, Ghost in the shell and Max Headroom are portrayed as a figure with human-liked appearance, but actually deep inside are inhuman by looking at their activities and needs in the films, for instance, drink blood to survive, need steady repair when break down. He claimed that people believe cyborgs are totally not human, just a hybrid of machine and human, thus, they are always suffered from bad things in the movie, in order to show people’s (director and audience) hatred and panic towards the cyborgs, they count them as otherness. Nevertheless, they will not regard them as just a technological device, it is because they have different gender roles, and will also die, simply like human. This writing can clarify that people are commonly think that cyborgs are transgressive, something different from human and machine.
The Modernistic Posthuman Prophecy of Donna Haraway--Peta S. Cook
This writing will use for discussing the reasons of cyborgs are transgressive in advance. The writer believes that a cyborg is a hybrid entitle with a techno-organic soul and human flesh. In addition, he thinks that cyborgs are not just a science and military integration of human and technology, but some fundamental dualistic prospect that influence daily self-conceptualizations, thus it is a challenge of organic and scientific differentiation. In the reality, he thinks that some people has some technological devices inside his body can be considered as not a cyborg in some cases, like, the people who has a prosthetic leg, although he should be seen as a cybrog scientifically, the writers claims that we should look over the body, but focus more on people’s thinking,
Brain-Computer Interface Systems--Dylan McKeever & Andrew Stevenson
For this piece of writing, I will use it to explain that some scholars consider a few cyborg cases are somehow not transgressive. In the above writing, the writer believes that if a disabled person with a prosthetic limb should not be really considered as cyborg, as he or she still has his or her own thinking. The writers of ‘Brain-Computer Interface Systems’ also have a similar idea, have mentioned a case about a brain-paralysed cyborg. A group of scientists implanted a machine, called neuromotor prosthesis into a paralysed patient’s brain, which allow him to control objects by his own thoughts, such as, switch on and off the television, and even change channels. It is obvious that this paralysed patient totally matches the definition of cyborgs. The writers believe that it is nice to help people with disability to live like a normal person. Moreover, they avoid using the term ‘cyborg’ as well, as they may think ‘cyborg’ is a bit negative, show no respect to the patient, or they may consider the patient is totally a human though he is really a cyborg technically. Therefore, they just use other scientific terms to replace this word, such as, people with brain-computer interfaces. This writing can show that people tend to imagine disabled people with implanted device or dependent on machine are still ‘very’ human, at least they have their own mind.
Performing the Cyborg: Stelarc--Andrew Eglinton
This essay allows me to reinforce the though of the above paralysed patient’s case, and also gives an idea that when cyborgs have dissimilar purposes, they are considered as two different things in someway. The writer has similar idea on the above case, he weighs this circumstance as a life-enhancement, does not deny the patient is not human. Then he further explains that, if the idea of cyborg use in military force, such as, enhancing soldiers to become stronger, modifying them into a kind of weapons or military equipment, he thinks that it is ethically questionable, not quite acceptable. Besides, the writer has proposed that cyborgs should be considered as the ‘others’, and classified into a lower rank. Apparently, he believes that cyborg is definitely not human, if not, he will not think they are ‘others’. I will use this to show that people always think cyborg for military use is morally inappropriate, it is something more than a machine, but obviously not a human. On the other hand, they accept the people becoming a cyborg, because of their physical disabilities or illness, though in technological level, this kind of cyborg is the same as the cyborg for military use, just different in purpose. From the above writings, we can see that scholars tend to think cyborgs are transgressive, but when they consider the cases of disabled people, there maybe some contradictions.
Reference
Andrew Eglinton (2006) ‘Performing the Cyborg: Stelarc’http://www.londontheatreblog.co.uk/performing-the-cyborg-stelarc/ (accessed
Dylan McKeever & Andrew Stevenson (2007) ‘Brain-Computer Interface Systems’.http://www.cyborgdb.org/mckeever.htm(accessed 27 February 2009)
Greg Halenda (2005) ‘Fatally Flawed’. http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/cyborg/halenda/3.html(accessed
Peta S. Cook (2004) ‘The Modernistic Posthuman Prophecy of Donna Haraway’http://eprints.qut.edu.au/646/1/cook_peta.pdf (accessed
Thomas Blake (2007) ‘Technological Transcendence: Why It’s Okay that the Future Doesn’t Need Us’. http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/conferences/ethicomp/ethicomp2007/abstracts/83.html (accessed
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Stella's Critical Annotated Webliography
Question 3: Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyze some of the ways in which Frankenstein haunts discussion of recent technologies.
Mary Shelley created a novel so profound in its themes that its prose and force has survived for almost 200 years. This epic novel that would become an immortal favorite in literary, academic, and entertainment circles that even today is the basis of nightmares, horror films and even a few comedy films. The themes of Frankenstein have been cited as inspirational to thousands of medical professionals. By reading Shelley in the context of present technologically advanced times, her tale of monstrous creation provides a very gruesome caution. For today, it is not merely a human being the sciences are lusting blindly to bring to life, but rather to generate something potentially even more dangerous and horrifying with implications that could endanger the entire world and human population.
Brian P. Bloomfield and Theo Vurdubakis’s article started with useful points for my discussion, as it outlines the significance of the notion that reproductive technology provided a new discursive register for social debates nowadays. The authors offer valid examples and cases on the potential of scientific knowledge to generate and uphold new forms of social organization. For instance, the "biological interventions" that indicated by Haldane's paper, Daedalus, or Science and the Future within the article, showing how the reproductive technology transforms the entire society and sets out to outline how this is expected to rewrite the logic of the social order. He said, “on the influence of biology on history during the 20th century”, the paper argued that the future of society would be shaped more and more by biological knowledge and its applications, just as in the past physics and chemistry had been the driving force of change. He thought that ‘A world where parents could effect any improvement they chose upon the gene pool, shaping each generation as desired "from increased output of first-class music to.... decreased convictions for theft". The author then quoted the Alvin Toffler’s expectation in Future Shock (1971), accounting "new genetic knowledge will permit us to tinker with human heredity and manipulate genes to create altogether new versions of man."
The second essay is from Mr. Roboto . I would like to use this short article of him to continue discuss the trend that modern people are more likely to develop the reproductive technologies. It is not only the reproduction upon the animals, like, the cloned sheep Dolly, but also having the trend towards human beings. In this article, the author shows a real example of a Los Angeles clinic that offering parents a chance to moderate their future babies via genetic manipulation. As Mr. Roboto said, “The technique, called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), allows parents and doctors to screen out potential gene-borne diseases and other “defects,” but soon could be used to increase the chance of a baby to have certain “choice” attributes like height, hair color, and even IQ. This genetic screening can also offer the parents to “choose” the gender of the baby. Following that, the author listed out the disadvantages of the ‘Frankenstein-baby’ and indicates that the machines may change over our life.
Brian P.Bloomfield, and Theo Vurdubakis examine more closely on how the socio-moral dilemmas associated with new technological developments in the late twentieth centuries. It is an article that can provide effective debates over developments in reproduction technology to offer some observations on the ways in which such technologies routinely become enmirred in cultural ambivalence. They focus on the use of chimerical figures such as the ‘Designer Baby’ or the ‘Human Clone’ as metaphors for the power of the new technologies to re-make both society and the body. Meanwhile, the authors use the example of the well-known successful ‘cloning’ of an adult sheep by scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland in 1997 as the case studies for the discussion. The authors draw a conclusion that the fantasies of self-creation, the ‘designer baby’ and the human clone are functioning as symbols of a new era of ontological insecurity. Post-natural bodies can represent the joyful opening of new possibilities, but simultaneously generate effects of anxiety, disorientation and revulsion to the society. It is quite critical to say if we should continue the reproductive technologies process as it is true that the raises of the spectre of human values has inexorably weakened by this techno-scientific advance.
The fourth essay is from Alisa Burn . She clearly produced valid instances for the essay to imply the disadvantages of enjoying the advanced technology in the aspect of human’s daily life. Other than that, she indicates the notion that the potential for disaster is very real when we are taking the power of our minds and placing it into machines that have the ability to act in ways that exceed our own abilities. She offers a detail account for the advanced technologies that we are all blinded by the seemingly beneficial qualities of this growing use of it, naively becoming more and more dependent upon this very powerful creation. Burn uses the updated electronic “smart” machines (or we can say, essential machines in our daily life), like the TVs, PCs, and pocket planners, to show that we are more likely to dependent on the machines. It is true that they make life simple and naively we seem to maintain that we are master over this immense power, when the role is shifting as we become more and more attached to the perks technology seems to offer every day.
Wheeler wrote a blog called ‘Frankenstein VS Cloning – Man: Created or Creator’ to compare the similarity of the Frankenstein and cloning. However, she used a very different angle upon the discussion, that is, viewed it in a religious perspective. The author first defined the meaning of cloning, which is, referring to the DNA and the reproductive cloning nowadays. The process creates copies of DNA or cells to create organism whereas Frankenstein assembled the body ingredients into new specie. Meanwhile, Wheeler stated his opposite point of view of the Christians. She claimed that the cloning process is practiced like what the Frankenstein scientist did – human tries to take God’s place. The cloning, that is, the reproductive technology, is taken place in an unnatural way that violated the principles and morality of human beings.
From all the above, the discussion about Frankenstein is mainly related to the fear between humanity and technology. Most of the sources used Frankenstein as a metaphor to illustrate the problem of modern science and technologies such as reproductive technology and cloning. Topics about moral issues, humanity and religion are also being discussed accordingly. Frankenstein myth and its theme of the dangers of science and technologies do consist of unknown number of risks. It obviously makes life simper but at the same time it destroys the natural way of reproduction, as well as shifted the power of our minds to the electronic appliances. It is true that human life is indeed on top of the manipulation of science and technologies, but what we can do, is to strive a balance between the dilemmas that we are facing and the science-techno development with our principles and morality.
References
Bloomfield.P. B., Vurdubakis. T. (2006) ‘Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of’ Frankenstein’ http://www.waset.org/ijss/v1/v1-1-4.pdf (accessed on March 1,2009)
Bloomfield.P. B., Vurdubakis. T. (2003) ‘The Curse of Frankenstein: Visions of Technology and Society in the Debate over New Reproductive Technologies.’ http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:UGNkRbDgvVAJ:www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/publications/viewpdf/000215/+Frankenstein+and+haunted+Technologies&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=104 (accessed on 20 March 2009)
Burns. A. (2002) ‘Frankenstein of the Future’ http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/frank.comment4.html (accessed on March 20, 2009)
Roboto, (2009) ‘Designer Babies, Only in L.A. (for now)’ (March 4, 2009) Cyberpunkreview.http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/news-as-cyberpunk/designer-babies-only-in-la-for-now/ (accessed on March 4,2009)
Wheeler, H. (2007). ‘Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Creator.’ (June 21, 2007) Harmonious Glow Writings. http://harmoniousglow.blogspot.com/2007/06/frankenstein-vs-cloning-man-created-or.html (accessed on 20 March 2009)
Mary Shelley created a novel so profound in its themes that its prose and force has survived for almost 200 years. This epic novel that would become an immortal favorite in literary, academic, and entertainment circles that even today is the basis of nightmares, horror films and even a few comedy films. The themes of Frankenstein have been cited as inspirational to thousands of medical professionals. By reading Shelley in the context of present technologically advanced times, her tale of monstrous creation provides a very gruesome caution. For today, it is not merely a human being the sciences are lusting blindly to bring to life, but rather to generate something potentially even more dangerous and horrifying with implications that could endanger the entire world and human population.
Brian P. Bloomfield and Theo Vurdubakis’s article started with useful points for my discussion, as it outlines the significance of the notion that reproductive technology provided a new discursive register for social debates nowadays. The authors offer valid examples and cases on the potential of scientific knowledge to generate and uphold new forms of social organization. For instance, the "biological interventions" that indicated by Haldane's paper, Daedalus, or Science and the Future within the article, showing how the reproductive technology transforms the entire society and sets out to outline how this is expected to rewrite the logic of the social order. He said, “on the influence of biology on history during the 20th century”, the paper argued that the future of society would be shaped more and more by biological knowledge and its applications, just as in the past physics and chemistry had been the driving force of change. He thought that ‘A world where parents could effect any improvement they chose upon the gene pool, shaping each generation as desired "from increased output of first-class music to.... decreased convictions for theft". The author then quoted the Alvin Toffler’s expectation in Future Shock (1971), accounting "new genetic knowledge will permit us to tinker with human heredity and manipulate genes to create altogether new versions of man."
The second essay is from Mr. Roboto . I would like to use this short article of him to continue discuss the trend that modern people are more likely to develop the reproductive technologies. It is not only the reproduction upon the animals, like, the cloned sheep Dolly, but also having the trend towards human beings. In this article, the author shows a real example of a Los Angeles clinic that offering parents a chance to moderate their future babies via genetic manipulation. As Mr. Roboto said, “The technique, called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), allows parents and doctors to screen out potential gene-borne diseases and other “defects,” but soon could be used to increase the chance of a baby to have certain “choice” attributes like height, hair color, and even IQ. This genetic screening can also offer the parents to “choose” the gender of the baby. Following that, the author listed out the disadvantages of the ‘Frankenstein-baby’ and indicates that the machines may change over our life.
Brian P.Bloomfield, and Theo Vurdubakis examine more closely on how the socio-moral dilemmas associated with new technological developments in the late twentieth centuries. It is an article that can provide effective debates over developments in reproduction technology to offer some observations on the ways in which such technologies routinely become enmirred in cultural ambivalence. They focus on the use of chimerical figures such as the ‘Designer Baby’ or the ‘Human Clone’ as metaphors for the power of the new technologies to re-make both society and the body. Meanwhile, the authors use the example of the well-known successful ‘cloning’ of an adult sheep by scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland in 1997 as the case studies for the discussion. The authors draw a conclusion that the fantasies of self-creation, the ‘designer baby’ and the human clone are functioning as symbols of a new era of ontological insecurity. Post-natural bodies can represent the joyful opening of new possibilities, but simultaneously generate effects of anxiety, disorientation and revulsion to the society. It is quite critical to say if we should continue the reproductive technologies process as it is true that the raises of the spectre of human values has inexorably weakened by this techno-scientific advance.
The fourth essay is from Alisa Burn . She clearly produced valid instances for the essay to imply the disadvantages of enjoying the advanced technology in the aspect of human’s daily life. Other than that, she indicates the notion that the potential for disaster is very real when we are taking the power of our minds and placing it into machines that have the ability to act in ways that exceed our own abilities. She offers a detail account for the advanced technologies that we are all blinded by the seemingly beneficial qualities of this growing use of it, naively becoming more and more dependent upon this very powerful creation. Burn uses the updated electronic “smart” machines (or we can say, essential machines in our daily life), like the TVs, PCs, and pocket planners, to show that we are more likely to dependent on the machines. It is true that they make life simple and naively we seem to maintain that we are master over this immense power, when the role is shifting as we become more and more attached to the perks technology seems to offer every day.
Wheeler wrote a blog called ‘Frankenstein VS Cloning – Man: Created or Creator’ to compare the similarity of the Frankenstein and cloning. However, she used a very different angle upon the discussion, that is, viewed it in a religious perspective. The author first defined the meaning of cloning, which is, referring to the DNA and the reproductive cloning nowadays. The process creates copies of DNA or cells to create organism whereas Frankenstein assembled the body ingredients into new specie. Meanwhile, Wheeler stated his opposite point of view of the Christians. She claimed that the cloning process is practiced like what the Frankenstein scientist did – human tries to take God’s place. The cloning, that is, the reproductive technology, is taken place in an unnatural way that violated the principles and morality of human beings.
From all the above, the discussion about Frankenstein is mainly related to the fear between humanity and technology. Most of the sources used Frankenstein as a metaphor to illustrate the problem of modern science and technologies such as reproductive technology and cloning. Topics about moral issues, humanity and religion are also being discussed accordingly. Frankenstein myth and its theme of the dangers of science and technologies do consist of unknown number of risks. It obviously makes life simper but at the same time it destroys the natural way of reproduction, as well as shifted the power of our minds to the electronic appliances. It is true that human life is indeed on top of the manipulation of science and technologies, but what we can do, is to strive a balance between the dilemmas that we are facing and the science-techno development with our principles and morality.
References
Bloomfield.P. B., Vurdubakis. T. (2006) ‘Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of’ Frankenstein’ http://www.waset.org/ijss/v1/v1-1-4.pdf (accessed on March 1,2009)
Bloomfield.P. B., Vurdubakis. T. (2003) ‘The Curse of Frankenstein: Visions of Technology and Society in the Debate over New Reproductive Technologies.’ http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:UGNkRbDgvVAJ:www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/publications/viewpdf/000215/+Frankenstein+and+haunted+Technologies&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=104 (accessed on 20 March 2009)
Burns. A. (2002) ‘Frankenstein of the Future’ http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/frank.comment4.html (accessed on March 20, 2009)
Roboto, (2009) ‘Designer Babies, Only in L.A. (for now)’ (March 4, 2009) Cyberpunkreview.http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/news-as-cyberpunk/designer-babies-only-in-la-for-now/ (accessed on March 4,2009)
Wheeler, H. (2007). ‘Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Creator.’ (June 21, 2007) Harmonious Glow Writings. http://harmoniousglow.blogspot.com/2007/06/frankenstein-vs-cloning-man-created-or.html (accessed on 20 March 2009)
Hi! It's me!!!!!
It's Edith here. This is the first time I write a blog.
In everyday morning, when I wake up, I will immediately turn on my computer and visit Apple Daily. If I don't have enough time, I will check it up with my phone on the way I go to school. I think it is quite important to know what has happened in HK and the world, I will feel like missing something if I don't have a look of it. When I back home, I will also visit miniforum (this is Jacqueline's favourite website, too^^), there are so many different categories, e.g. football, cooking, fashion, 'blow water'. I usually visit the football one ,it provides many update football news and live talks of matches, but not much Arsenal fans there...
Recently, strawberries are very cheap and sweet, and I have addicted in drinking strawberry milkshake, my mom make it everyday, and I drink at least two glasses....yummy!
Webliography-Q1
Cyborg is a word that consisted of cybernetic and organism. It was a term that firstly used by Manfred Clynes and Nathan K. Due to the new frontier of space exploration was beginning to take place, they started to think about the need for an intimate relationship between human and machine. Cyborg was used as a concept about human-machine systems in outer space.
Originally, a cyborg referred to a human being with bodily functions aided or controlled by technological devices, like artificial heart valve. But over the years, cyborg seemed to carry an uncomplicated meaning.
In“The End of the Human? The Cyborg Past and Present”, Carole M. Cusack mentioned the cyborg may be viewed as a violation of humanity’ s special status, but she also mentioned the cybrog is still human, “one of us” even though it is modified. Since the internet, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality become more and more important in our life, many humans are no longer entirely “natural”.
Contemporary academic researches argued against the cyborg’s transgression of boundaries. The cyborg against the stability or reality of the individual since it allows the reconstructions of personal identity. Cusack also examined a range of figures from Indo-European mythology to reveals that the melding of human and machine has been imagined far longer than it has been technologically realizable. The myths are useful to prove that cyborg are neither wholly technological not completely organic. The organic cyborg is naturally both flesh and metal, and she is intensely desirable because she combines the lust for riches with the desires of the flesh. The myths perform the function of connecting the imagination with real craft.
In The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist and Her Critic”, Krista Scott criticized Haraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto” as it reveal the ambiguity and irrelevance of nature-culture binarisms in the cyborg age. I It is useful for me to argue the very dichotomous definition of cyborg.n the manifesto, Haraway attempts to create what she calls “an ironic political myth” which combines postmodernism with socialist feminism. Scott challenged Haraway does not limit her critique of an imagined “natural” to feminists as Haraway is consistent in her opposition to false organics in other fields, particularly the scientific.
Haraway mentioned that the feminists cannot use an imagined organic ontology as a point of politics or engage in “knee-jerk technophobi” because there simply isn’t such a “natural” self. Thus, for Haraway, the cyborg is the merger between nature and civilization. Refers to Scott’s article, the cyborg does not exist as nature or culture, but is rather a hybrid of both and more. The cyborg is not limited by traditional binarisms and dualist paradigms. The cyborg is polymorphous perversity. Haraway’s cyborg myth is about indiscriminate boundaries.
Justin Roby disagreed with William Gibson and Donna Haraway s’ views on cyborg in “Systematic Change: William Gibson, Monsters, Cyborgs, and Time”. Roby used the stories William Gibson tells to pull Gowther’s story into a new focus. This new focus helps me to criticize William Gibson and Donna Haraways’ views on cyborg led the sake of mere dichotomy.Gibson writes of historical hybridity as well as physical hybridity. Gibson sees space itself as allowing hybridity: fleshly and divine, the body has as much place in cyberspace as it does anywhere else. He developed a hybrid view of the world in which identity depends upon instability for its survival. Hence, the hybridity has become the norm, and attempts to make sense of it or control it are presented as intensely problematic in his novels. Both entities are infinitely removed from humanity, having the power to maintain their lines indefinitely. This indicates a new way of thinking about postmodern space-time in favor of subjects who are capable of navigating such complex structures.
And Roby also mentioned Haraway sees the cyborg as a deeply problematic entity as it is excess of technology and excess of time. Roby argued that such entities of excess are now more necessary than ever. He argued that the modern hybrids of technology, we ought not to be controlled or domesticated by Gibson’s philosophy and its resonances with Haraway’s argument. Hence, Roby tried to argue instead that new ways of organizing time and space enable new conceptions of the subject, the author, and identity.
In “Identity, Power, and Representation in Virtual Environments”, Frank Vander Valk used Second Life as a specific example. Valk’s point of view support my agreement that cyborg is still a transgressive figure.The real life norms governing the relationship between interpersonal distance and gaze are maintained in Second Life. The rules that govern our physical bodies in the real world have come to govern our embodied identities in the virtual world. Therefore, virtual life does not transcend real life, but rather mirrors it.
Thus, Valk challenges the view that virtual environments are reliably neutral venues for the creation of virtual identities that escape the culturally constructed power structures of the real world. Valk claims that the very dichotomy between real and virtual is itself questionable.
Valk though that the new technological developments oblige us to become transgressive mixtures of biology, technology, and code. The blurs and fragments boundaries and senses of self and place and functions as a virtual microcosm for cultural, economic and identity recombination.
Hari Kunzru used “a baddest girl on the block” as a metaphor of cyborg in “Bad Girl Versus the Astronaut Christ: The Strange Political Journey of the Cyborg”. The metaphor made by Kunzru provides examples that the cyborg’s meaning is complicated. “The structures revealed by her transgressive linking of supposedly-separate domains are precisely those which are most unpalatable to the vested interests of technocapital.”[1], for instance, the cyborg reminds us that a naked human body might be networked to gene patenting.
Yet, we may say the cyborg was designed to engineer man closer to God. We may regard cyborg as an “Astronaut Christ” due to its primary function as a transgressive figure. The cyborg operates by transgressing the regimes of signification. The cyborg is useful as long as it retains its power to transgress, and does not recede into a conventional articulation of anxieties about plastic surgery, AI, etc. The cyborg allows us to transcend physical limitations. Human can transcend own physical boundaries, we could attain a higher level of spiritual discipline.
According to Kunzru, cyborg forces us to situate thought in the body, and in turn to situate bodies in networks which contain elements of biology, politics, desire and technology. It produces continuities between these disparate strata, allowing us to think what would otherwise be unthinkable.
Over the years, cyborg has acquired different meanings. Cyborg can be used to characterize anyone who relies on a computer to complete their daily work when describing the dependence of human beings on technology. It also means “a cybernetic organism”, “a hybrid of machine and organism”, or “a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction”. Hence, cyborg seems to carry complicated meaning now.
[1] Hari, Kunzru. (1997) ‘Bad Girl Versus the Astronaut Christ: The Strange Political Journey of the Cyborg’, http://90.146.8.18/en/archiv_files/19971/E1997_100.pdf, (accessed 26 February 2009).
Reference:
1. Carole, M. Cusack. ‘The End of the Human? The Cyborg Past and Present’, http://escholarship.library.usyd.edu.au/journals/index.php/SSR/article/view/213/193, (accessed 26 February 2009).
2. Frank, Vander Valk. (2008) ‘Identity, Power, and Representation in Virtual Environments’, http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no2/vandervalk0608.htm, (accessed 2 March 2009).
3. Hari, Kunzru. (1997) ‘Bad Girl Versus the Astronaut Christ: The Strange Political Journey of the Cyborg’, http://90.146.8.18/en/archiv_files/19971/E1997_100.pdf, (accessed 26 February 2009).
4. Justin, Roby. (2001) ‘Systematic Change: William Gibson, Monsters, Cyborgs, and Time’, http://www.janushead.org/gwu-2001/roby.cfm, (accessed 26 February 2009).
5. Krista, Scott. (1997) ‘The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist and Her Critic’, http://www.stumptuous.com/cyborg.html, (accessed 28 February 2009).
Originally, a cyborg referred to a human being with bodily functions aided or controlled by technological devices, like artificial heart valve. But over the years, cyborg seemed to carry an uncomplicated meaning.
In“The End of the Human? The Cyborg Past and Present”, Carole M. Cusack mentioned the cyborg may be viewed as a violation of humanity’ s special status, but she also mentioned the cybrog is still human, “one of us” even though it is modified. Since the internet, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality become more and more important in our life, many humans are no longer entirely “natural”.
Contemporary academic researches argued against the cyborg’s transgression of boundaries. The cyborg against the stability or reality of the individual since it allows the reconstructions of personal identity. Cusack also examined a range of figures from Indo-European mythology to reveals that the melding of human and machine has been imagined far longer than it has been technologically realizable. The myths are useful to prove that cyborg are neither wholly technological not completely organic. The organic cyborg is naturally both flesh and metal, and she is intensely desirable because she combines the lust for riches with the desires of the flesh. The myths perform the function of connecting the imagination with real craft.
In The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist and Her Critic”, Krista Scott criticized Haraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto” as it reveal the ambiguity and irrelevance of nature-culture binarisms in the cyborg age. I It is useful for me to argue the very dichotomous definition of cyborg.n the manifesto, Haraway attempts to create what she calls “an ironic political myth” which combines postmodernism with socialist feminism. Scott challenged Haraway does not limit her critique of an imagined “natural” to feminists as Haraway is consistent in her opposition to false organics in other fields, particularly the scientific.
Haraway mentioned that the feminists cannot use an imagined organic ontology as a point of politics or engage in “knee-jerk technophobi” because there simply isn’t such a “natural” self. Thus, for Haraway, the cyborg is the merger between nature and civilization. Refers to Scott’s article, the cyborg does not exist as nature or culture, but is rather a hybrid of both and more. The cyborg is not limited by traditional binarisms and dualist paradigms. The cyborg is polymorphous perversity. Haraway’s cyborg myth is about indiscriminate boundaries.
Justin Roby disagreed with William Gibson and Donna Haraway s’ views on cyborg in “Systematic Change: William Gibson, Monsters, Cyborgs, and Time”. Roby used the stories William Gibson tells to pull Gowther’s story into a new focus. This new focus helps me to criticize William Gibson and Donna Haraways’ views on cyborg led the sake of mere dichotomy.Gibson writes of historical hybridity as well as physical hybridity. Gibson sees space itself as allowing hybridity: fleshly and divine, the body has as much place in cyberspace as it does anywhere else. He developed a hybrid view of the world in which identity depends upon instability for its survival. Hence, the hybridity has become the norm, and attempts to make sense of it or control it are presented as intensely problematic in his novels. Both entities are infinitely removed from humanity, having the power to maintain their lines indefinitely. This indicates a new way of thinking about postmodern space-time in favor of subjects who are capable of navigating such complex structures.
And Roby also mentioned Haraway sees the cyborg as a deeply problematic entity as it is excess of technology and excess of time. Roby argued that such entities of excess are now more necessary than ever. He argued that the modern hybrids of technology, we ought not to be controlled or domesticated by Gibson’s philosophy and its resonances with Haraway’s argument. Hence, Roby tried to argue instead that new ways of organizing time and space enable new conceptions of the subject, the author, and identity.
In “Identity, Power, and Representation in Virtual Environments”, Frank Vander Valk used Second Life as a specific example. Valk’s point of view support my agreement that cyborg is still a transgressive figure.The real life norms governing the relationship between interpersonal distance and gaze are maintained in Second Life. The rules that govern our physical bodies in the real world have come to govern our embodied identities in the virtual world. Therefore, virtual life does not transcend real life, but rather mirrors it.
Thus, Valk challenges the view that virtual environments are reliably neutral venues for the creation of virtual identities that escape the culturally constructed power structures of the real world. Valk claims that the very dichotomy between real and virtual is itself questionable.
Valk though that the new technological developments oblige us to become transgressive mixtures of biology, technology, and code. The blurs and fragments boundaries and senses of self and place and functions as a virtual microcosm for cultural, economic and identity recombination.
Hari Kunzru used “a baddest girl on the block” as a metaphor of cyborg in “Bad Girl Versus the Astronaut Christ: The Strange Political Journey of the Cyborg”. The metaphor made by Kunzru provides examples that the cyborg’s meaning is complicated. “The structures revealed by her transgressive linking of supposedly-separate domains are precisely those which are most unpalatable to the vested interests of technocapital.”[1], for instance, the cyborg reminds us that a naked human body might be networked to gene patenting.
Yet, we may say the cyborg was designed to engineer man closer to God. We may regard cyborg as an “Astronaut Christ” due to its primary function as a transgressive figure. The cyborg operates by transgressing the regimes of signification. The cyborg is useful as long as it retains its power to transgress, and does not recede into a conventional articulation of anxieties about plastic surgery, AI, etc. The cyborg allows us to transcend physical limitations. Human can transcend own physical boundaries, we could attain a higher level of spiritual discipline.
According to Kunzru, cyborg forces us to situate thought in the body, and in turn to situate bodies in networks which contain elements of biology, politics, desire and technology. It produces continuities between these disparate strata, allowing us to think what would otherwise be unthinkable.
Over the years, cyborg has acquired different meanings. Cyborg can be used to characterize anyone who relies on a computer to complete their daily work when describing the dependence of human beings on technology. It also means “a cybernetic organism”, “a hybrid of machine and organism”, or “a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction”. Hence, cyborg seems to carry complicated meaning now.
[1] Hari, Kunzru. (1997) ‘Bad Girl Versus the Astronaut Christ: The Strange Political Journey of the Cyborg’, http://90.146.8.18/en/archiv_files/19971/E1997_100.pdf, (accessed 26 February 2009).
Reference:
1. Carole, M. Cusack. ‘The End of the Human? The Cyborg Past and Present’, http://escholarship.library.usyd.edu.au/journals/index.php/SSR/article/view/213/193, (accessed 26 February 2009).
2. Frank, Vander Valk. (2008) ‘Identity, Power, and Representation in Virtual Environments’, http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no2/vandervalk0608.htm, (accessed 2 March 2009).
3. Hari, Kunzru. (1997) ‘Bad Girl Versus the Astronaut Christ: The Strange Political Journey of the Cyborg’, http://90.146.8.18/en/archiv_files/19971/E1997_100.pdf, (accessed 26 February 2009).
4. Justin, Roby. (2001) ‘Systematic Change: William Gibson, Monsters, Cyborgs, and Time’, http://www.janushead.org/gwu-2001/roby.cfm, (accessed 26 February 2009).
5. Krista, Scott. (1997) ‘The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist and Her Critic’, http://www.stumptuous.com/cyborg.html, (accessed 28 February 2009).
Outline of presentation -week 5 topic jenniCAM
Hello, I will present Krissi M. Jimroglou's article which named a camera with a view JenniCAM, visual representation and cybrog subjectivity in week 5 tutorial.
Here are the outlines:
1) Technology may be harm for the privacy and benefit for publice
2) Visual life all challenged the tradition life style
3) Technologies and the real life are affecting our new daily life
Here are the outlines:
1) Technology may be harm for the privacy and benefit for publice
2) Visual life all challenged the tradition life style
3) Technologies and the real life are affecting our new daily life
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Outline of presentation
Hi everyone. I am going to give out a short presentation on the article written by Alison Adam, cyberstalking , gender and computer ethics on 5th March.
An outline of the presentation is provided as fellows.
1) The power relations of gender reflecting in information and communication technologies.- technological determinism
2) The Feminist ethnics and the computer-based behavior
-inequalities in power
3) Online sexual harassment -Quotation from Catherine MacKinnon, the sexual harassment as “the unwanted imposition of the sexual requirement in the context of a relationship of unequal power. Central to the concept is the use of power derived from one social sphere to lever benefits or impose deprivations in another.”
4) Cyberstalking - Victims in the cases discussed are all females.
An outline of the presentation is provided as fellows.
1) The power relations of gender reflecting in information and communication technologies.- technological determinism
2) The Feminist ethnics and the computer-based behavior
-inequalities in power
3) Online sexual harassment -Quotation from Catherine MacKinnon, the sexual harassment as “the unwanted imposition of the sexual requirement in the context of a relationship of unequal power. Central to the concept is the use of power derived from one social sphere to lever benefits or impose deprivations in another.”
4) Cyberstalking - Victims in the cases discussed are all females.
My Critical Annotated Webliography
Guiding Question:
Cyborgs are hybrid entities that are neither wholly technological nor completely prganic, which means that the cyborg has the potential not only to disrupt persistent dualism [in language and thought] ... but also to refashion our thinking’. (Balsamo). Drawing on current scholarly work, discuss ways in which the cyborg is still a transgressive figure.
Cyborg is a creation of both man and machine, its concept lies within a gray area, or blurred boundaries. Considering the guiding question, one way to approach the question is to research on the current cyborg phenomenon and see in what ways the cyborg is still a transgressive figure under the current cyborg phenomenon.
“Should there be a limit placed on the integration of humans and computers and electronic technology?” by Steve Mizrach
First, it is important to define cyborg and why it would be considered a transgressive figure. As mentioned in this article, cyborg can be depicted as “[this being was] a sort of hybrid, a mesh of flesh and steel, neurons and wires, blood and circuits. It was a human being partially transformed into a machine”. In other word, cyborg is neither wholly technological nor completely organic. This article tells us about how the computer allows the augmentation of the human being through the integration of electronic technology into the human being. This brings us to the notion of cyborgization of the human race. Such integration suggests that the human race is able to “transcend limitations of intellect, strength, and longevity previously ‘programmed’ into its DNA by eons of evolution”. The article also includes useful examples in illustrating the statement mentioned just now. Thus, the article helps illustrate the present cyborg phenomenon, telling us that the augmentation of human being through technology can be regarded as cyborgization of the human race. This suggests being cyborg is possible for anybody in today’s world.
“Cyber Gender” by Jennifer Breen
This article shows a broader sense of cyborg. It is particularly about the emergence of the “internet cyborg” brought about by technological advancement. Obviously, the term “internet cyborg” seems a lot more related to us. Cyborg, in the broad sense, includes people who have connection with any technological devices. This article is useful in illustrating a new notion of cyborg(the internet cyborg) and how the internet cyborg may be considered a trangressive figure.
As can be seen from the title “Cyber Gender”, it is about gender-trangressive on the internet. As mentioned in the article, the new identity is formed from the relationship between the original identity and the internet. It is a cyborg identity, part machine, part human. The author explains that “the internet identity you create might be an extension of yourself, but you too become an extension of that identity.” She mentions that postmodern identity is crucially about the individual freedom of choice regarding identity. The author says that identity is a multifaceted concept and people will probably choose to change only certain aspects of their identity. The author states that gender is one aspect of identity that people will commonly change online. She mentions that the internet cyborg considers gender as something that can be easily altered at will, and they are not bound to the gender system. By being able to change gender at will, the internet cyborg is able to generate a change in how we think about “gender”. The ability to choose whoever you want to be on the internet brings to us the notion of “hybrid entity”. This article gives example on how gender can be transgressed by the internet cyborgs.
“Technological Transcendence: Why It’s Okay that the Future Doesn’t Need Us” by Thomas Blake
Cyborg is similarly defined as “a combination of information technology and living matter” in this article. The author specifies a cyborg as “a human who has undergone the physical addition of mechanical parts such that they are integrated with the human’s biological body”. This can be referred to any living being that has been integrated with any kind of technology. The author provides examples showing that a child with immunizations or a man wearing glasses would count as a cyborg in this very broad sense. The writer then questions, how we, in this very broad sense, should define cyborg. As it seems that the addition of mechanical parts to the human body will not result in a being with a different nature at first glance. He then mentions that “when we see a cyborg in science fiction, however, with all robotic limbs and laser eyes, there seems to be something unnatural and even menacing about it. In fact, it seems better to call such a thing “it” rather than “him” or “her”.” In this sense, a confusion regarding what it is meant to be cyborg raised, especially in today’s world where technology is so advanced and people are so reliant on technology. However, it is suggested that though cyborg in the form of “a human who has undergone the physical addition of mechanic parts” seems common in today’s world, as long as they have undergone such “physical addition”, they can be regarded as cyborgs and are neither wholly technological nor completely organic as according to the definition made preciously.
“Being Cyborg is Possible for anybody” by Heo Jae-sung
This journal shows a changing nature of cyborg and how easily for one to fall into the category of cyborg nowadays. Originally, the conception of cyborg was meant to replace the body with the artificial organs so that people may survive severe circumstances. With technological development, today’s cyborg is used to provide people with artificial organs in case of losing a part of their body owing to disease or accident. The author mentions that “cyborg is a human who has certain physiological processes aided or controlled by mechanical or electronic devices”. Most artificial instruments fall into category of cyborg with the exception of natural organs of the body. The artificial instruments “are the cyborgs tools for crossing [these] borders” as shown in the article written by Chuck Meyer. Similar to the article written by Thomas Blake, the author states that cyborg includes people, for example, who prolong their life span by changing their old and ill organs to fresh artificial parts. That is why the writer titles the article as “Being cyborg is Possible for anybody” because in this very broad sense of cyborg, there are in fact already many cyborgs all over the world. This relates back to the article “Cyber Gender” that cyborg, in the broad sense, includes people who have connection with any technological devices.
“Human Identity in the Age of Computers” by Chuck Meyer
This article mainly focuses on the author’s response to Haraway’s conception of cyborg identity. The author mentions Haraway’s statement that “we are already cyborgs”. Haraway also recognizes the fragmentary nature of identity. Haraway believes that the cyborg myth should try to dissolve ideas of organic wholeness. The author states that the evolution of the cyborg identity is based in a series of border wars. Cyborgs stand at the borders between man and animal, animal and machine, physical and non-physical. The author further states that modern communication technologies and biotechnologies are the cyborgs tools for crossing these borders. We, as cyborgs, are transgressive figure that are neither wholly technological nor organic. In this sense, it can no longer be argued that we are completely organic as the concept of cyborg lies within a gray area.
The author gives useful daily examples on how one would be considered cyborg and how easily for one to fall into the category of cyborg nowadays. These examples are all startling boundary transgressions that we now accept as part of daily life. We cannot make strong distinctions between humans and computers as we are extending through cyborg couplings. The author stresses that science is displacing the boundaries between human and machine.
These online sources are useful in illustrating the cyborg phenomenon. They also provide adequate examples of how one would fall into the category of cyborg in today's world and in this sense, in what ways cyborg is still a transgressive figure.
References:
Chuck Meyer (2002) ‘Human Identity in the Age of Computers’.
http://fragment.nl/mirror/Meyer/CyborgIdentity.htm (accessed 26 February 2009)
Heo Jae-sung (2002) ‘Being Cyborg is Possible for anybody’ The Argus 369,
http://maincc.hufs.ac.kr/~theargus/369/theory_04.htm (accessed 26 February 2009)
Jennifer Breen (2007) ‘Cyber Gender’. http://cyborgdb.org/breen.htm (accessed 26 February 2009)
Steve Mizrach ‘Should there be a limit placed on the integration of humans and computers and electronic technology?’. http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/cyborg-ethics.html (accessed 26 February 2009)
Thomas Blake (2007) ‘Technological Transcendence: Why It’s Okay that the Future Doesn’t Need Us’.
http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/conferences/ethicomp/ethicomp2007/abstracts/83.html (accessed 26 February 2009)
Sunday, March 1, 2009
My Introduction
Hi everyone! This is Sybil and you are reading my first blog here :)
One of my favorite websites is RTHK. It may sound too "serious" and educational to some, but it is interesting. Various media forms are included there. Apart from archives of radio and TV programs, news articles, and Podcast video clips, there is a section which provides numerous accesses to learn new languages. The website is tightly connected with Hong Kong society and the rest of the world, so it serves as a significant tool to get to know different cultures. As maybe you can guess, I really enjoy traveling as it's fun to explore different cultures (learn their language, meet new people, try out new food...)
Anyone planning to travel somewhere after graduation?
I'll share my travel experiences with you guys in the coming posts.
Until then :)
Sybil
One of my favorite websites is RTHK. It may sound too "serious" and educational to some, but it is interesting. Various media forms are included there. Apart from archives of radio and TV programs, news articles, and Podcast video clips, there is a section which provides numerous accesses to learn new languages. The website is tightly connected with Hong Kong society and the rest of the world, so it serves as a significant tool to get to know different cultures. As maybe you can guess, I really enjoy traveling as it's fun to explore different cultures (learn their language, meet new people, try out new food...)
Anyone planning to travel somewhere after graduation?
I'll share my travel experiences with you guys in the coming posts.
Until then :)
Sybil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)