Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>
> At 07:01 PM 8/9/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >I think here we have the basic root of the disagreement. Contact lenses
> >are part of a continuing trend toward *physical* transhumanity that
> >started with wooden legs..< (snip)
>
> Can we pass on contact lens thang, please? I didn't bring it up initially
> and the metaphor is wearing thin. I don't want folks to get confused by
> the continued reference. I have never equated a person wearing a contact
> lens as a transhuman.
Yes, however it is a good idea not to dismiss the use of technologies
like this out of hand. What distinguishing characteristics do we use to
decide what technologies, when applied to a person, make that person
'transhuman'? Must they be electronic? Must they be active and
responsive to feedback and control by the user? Must they be permanently
attached? Or must they simply be features that allow a person to achieve
better than normal human performance? For example, contact lenses that
give you 20/10 vision, or that have a zoom ability that actively
responds to the eyes attempts to focus in on targets at distances?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:06 MDT