First bionic hand a success
from the early-cyborg dept.
Waldemar Perez writes "The first truly bionic hand was tested at Nottingham Hospital, UK. The development of the hand, that took more than 20 years, created the first 'self-contained' bionic hand. The unit is operated by nerve signals to the brain. The user sends a signal to the muscle where electrodes and sensors pick up the signal to execute the desired motion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1035000/1035304.stm"
November 28th, 2000 at 4:52 AM
Cyborg
I wonder how many years along it will be before the hands and legs are perferred to human parts for endurance, looks, functionality, stability, etc:
Does this make us Cyborgs? when do we start to attach the word cyborg to us…what do we replace that makes us a robot person versus just a human?
Thoughts anyone?
November 28th, 2000 at 11:14 AM
Re:Cyborg
At this point, the notion of a cyborg doesn't bother me (much) at least until you get to the notion of replacing (parts of) a person's brain with artificial parts. Up to that point, you're only talking about "improving the body" which we've been doing to small degrees for many years. After that, though, you have to begin talking about "replacing the person" because much of what goes into making you " you " is housed in the brain (even if we don't understand exactly what that is).
On the issue of cyborgs, though, the downside is the potential for a schism to develop between the "haves" and the "have nots". The human race already has sexism, racism, etc., so how do we handle adding another to the mix? It hardly seems likely that, in this money-based world, beneficial cyborg technology could be made cheaply (ie. freely) available to all.
November 28th, 2000 at 12:42 PM
Re:Cyborg
It will be many, many years before artificial hands and legs can rival the originals for finesse, dexterity, sensation, natural appearance and feel, or the ability, for example, to make red blood cells. By that time, the issues will be much transformed, due to the many other capabilities of technology that will be radically more advanced than what we have today.
Almost certainly, a nearly identical replacement for a lost limb can be grown from human tissue. For many reasons, I believe that most people will judge that to be the most desirable form of prosthesis, one that makes the human body whole again.
But of course, some people are obsessed with the notion of becoming "better" than human; stronger, faster, smarter, whatever, than others.
"Human" is an archetype, referred to the human species, homo sapiens, as it exists naturally, but preferably in the absence of injury or disease. Likewise, "Cyborg" is an archetype, something part-human, part-machine. How much of each? We can imagine situations which might call for a legal definition, say, that a human is a system consisting of no more than 10% non-human tissue mass, and in particular no more than 5% non-human brain mass; anything more is a cyborg. But I don't think such a definition, or any arguments about what the numbers should be, would be useful for discussion purposes. Any such dividing line would be somewhat arbitrary. But the distinction it would be attempting to delimit is not.
Let us recognize that a person who has lost a limb, say, or an eye (as technology advances), and is able to recover partial or full function through the use of a prosthetic device, is still to be regarded as human and not as a "cyborg"; but a person who seeks replacement of healthy body parts by "superior" technological systems is desiring to become a cyborg and at some point will have to be given that title.
November 28th, 2000 at 9:47 PM
Re:Cyborg
I think this is called "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest". By definition, everyone is obsessed with this and, therefore, its not a crime.
Cyborg, to me, seems to be a term describing a very close interface between man and machine. This is, necessarily, a fuzzy definition. How close is "very close" is something that will change over the next century, so questions of percentages are relatively unimportant. To me, the only distinction that is important is, in the interface of man and machine, which is in control .
November 29th, 2000 at 1:38 AM
Re:Cyborg
I think labelling a crowd of people has always been proven more negitive than positive, however it also helps in describing a persons attributes.
I would imagine that once changes start happening to a human, either to replace lost parts or "upgrading" to better parts, they in fact should be labelled something. I think though that SF movies has cast a dark light on the word cyborg though so even though its a fitting word, it is also a word that would make someone whom doesn't know the facts a bit nervous (anyone watching Star Trek would agree becoming a "Borg" is not very desirable…because its weird and impersonal).
Perhaps something as Altered human or humech
Its not really a grand imagination to think that science will someday best our natural bio-limbs however, I tend to have a halfway agreement with Mark in that as far as I can forsee, a fleshy hand is more desirable (for me, for now) than a metallic/silica hand (I reserve my right to change my mind)…perhaps though improvements can be made in the bio-hand itself merged with slight technology or made to order with superior muscle tone, harder bone structure, or a method that allows you to turn off feeling (disconnect/reconnect nerve endings) upon will (which would helps when you break fingers or something of the sort).
Perhaps we should look already at the human race as a species evolving into something…and therefore, creating a group (borgs) is just silly as soon everyone will be borg (resistance is futile…).
I think that if a hand can eventually be as good looking and feel the same as a bio-hand, then the defination of human/cyborg becomes even fuzzier…we are simply a species in transition…soon nanobots (what is it, about a year now) will be swimming through our bodies and clearing arteries and whatnots…however just because we have artifical help in a natural body, that doesn't make us a borg…makes us clever humans…unnatural…but whomever said to be unnatural is to be a bad/undesired thing.
I am quite impressed at what we are achieving now adays and perhaps in 20 years, Chris Reeves will be able to star in another Superman movie (with alot of makeup of course)
In the end…its necessary to continue this trend for the securement of our species (whatever that means) and to solve our problems and shortcomings. Our bodies presently has been a great asset however now its time to help out a rather slow mother nature in our quest to continue life, populate space, etc:.
Saturn
November 29th, 2000 at 10:32 PM
Religionists prefer Cyborg technology
Mark, I agree with you in that biological options are better than non-biological ones, at least for the next 50 years. However, the problem with the biological options is that they make use of cloning of stem-cells which, of course, the religionists don't like. Since governmental regulators are often sensitive to the political pressure exerted by these various groups, the non-biological option may be the only ones for a while.
There is a lot of political momentum in favor of using stem-cells to repair human bodies and generally inprove our health. Furthermore, adult stem-cells are proving to be as versetile as the embryonic stem-cells, but more research is needed to determine this. Most of the therapies I have seen in business-plans involve the use of the patient's own stem-cells, not embryonic ones. However, they still have to be cultivated in a lab. I'm not sure if the religionists object to this as well, or if they are only concerned with the harvesting of embryos and abortion.
Since stem-cell therapy will be developed based on stem-cells havested from the patients' own bodies, I think the objections of the religionists will be overcome.
Any thoughts on this?
November 30th, 2000 at 2:24 AM
Re:Religionists prefer Cyborg technology
Perhaps…
Seems that religious sects are always finding fault with scientific ethics, which in the short term is a bit of a pain but it does make us come up with less destructive means to a end. If this method does work, then the bible works for science for once…for only a man and a woman can concieve a child. Anything that is concieved by one person is a abomination, not from Jesus thierfor satanic by nature, and therefore no problem to be used by science to help out a natural being
This is fundimentally true for about all religions…and therefore it would be in their best interest to accept and embrace this method as the solution
Curious though, procreation is a sacrament and embrotic stem cell harvesting is not made by procreation(in contemporary terms). This is somewhat close however, intimacy of a man and a woman through procreation is when embrio and soul combine(therefore fall unto the domain of god and man). I dont see why the church should have a stance on using these embrio's (not made through procreation) for harvesting…seems if they are to start protecting all life, then they would have to protect chickens and plants and everything else..
so just be warned that religion(god?) tends to change its mind…alot.
(just be thankful that god doesn't change his mind on other issues…like gravity)
Me
p.s.- To those religious out their: I have no problem with your belief…so long as your rules are stated…dont make things up as you go along…4 years of catholic school was enough to do my head in of this and I am sure some of you can sympathise
November 30th, 2000 at 3:07 AM
Re:Religionists prefer Cyborg technology
I've got no problem with the religionists, either, just as long as they keep it to themselves. I just reject thier right to impose thier belief onto other people who want nothing to do with them. I don't believe in any god or religion (not even transhumanism), but I respect the right for other people to believe in what they want.