Evolution?
Im taking an ethno-linguistics class and we have been talking alot about the evolution of human beings in conjunction with the development of language (and its importance in defining human beings etc.)
Ive been thinking about evolution alot lately. I remember a book i read by Tom Robbins - Half asleep in frog pyjamas - (great book!) one thing he mentions is the arrogance of human beings to believe that we are the end of evolution.. that the last 2 million years was all leading towards who we are today as an end product. He offers an alternate explanation, that in the spirit of evolution, the only logical evolutional path for humans is to move towards amphibians. His explanation is something like this: We are destroying our ozone, and human beings cannot survive (in the form we currently hold) if the damage continues. The only logical place for humans to live will be the water, amphibians are [relatively] immune to the changes in hemispheric conditions - and so, Robbins sees our evolution towards amphibian[ism] to be practical and logical given this explanation (the book goes into greater detail as per the explanation)
Ive been reading a collection of critical esssays called "the end of everything: postmodernism and the vanishing of the human". Very interesting btw. The first article deals with Lyotards view of humanism and where we are heading in terms of evolution of a species - culturally speaking.
It talks about evolution, humans and technology. I had a chance to flesh some of the ideas out with Kathleen yesterday, and she got me thinking about it....the article talks about human's marriage with technology to enhance (or aid) human health etc. In terms of a natural evolution of human form over time, where does technological enhancement fit in? A question raised in the article, is what is the ratio of technology to human flesh to constitute remaining a human? Cyborg rights anyone??
Is this the next evolutional split since Homo Habilis/Erectus/Sapiens? Are we diverging towards a split of Sapien?Cyborg? To be fair, Lyotard (and the critical author Will Self) discusses the boundaries for cyborgs - if the technology cant "think" for itself, then it is purely enhancement which, no matter how bound we are with technology, we still control it - regardless of concepts of technological malfunctions.
Where does artificial organs fit into this picture? Between the 'natural' and the 'cyborg'? Where does artificial organs fit in the evolutional stage of human reproduction? At least with pure technology (in forms of metal etc) when reproduced still creates a non "cyborg" body (since the technology is added to the surface - inside or out) .. But artificial body parts...hmm..although rationally i would say that it makes no difference - but regardless, i think this whole concept of human intervention to this extreme is sticking one big stick in the spokes of the wheel of natural evolution (if you believe in that stuff hehe)
Im taking an ethno-linguistics class and we have been talking alot about the evolution of human beings in conjunction with the development of language (and its importance in defining human beings etc.)
Ive been thinking about evolution alot lately. I remember a book i read by Tom Robbins - Half asleep in frog pyjamas - (great book!) one thing he mentions is the arrogance of human beings to believe that we are the end of evolution.. that the last 2 million years was all leading towards who we are today as an end product. He offers an alternate explanation, that in the spirit of evolution, the only logical evolutional path for humans is to move towards amphibians. His explanation is something like this: We are destroying our ozone, and human beings cannot survive (in the form we currently hold) if the damage continues. The only logical place for humans to live will be the water, amphibians are [relatively] immune to the changes in hemispheric conditions - and so, Robbins sees our evolution towards amphibian[ism] to be practical and logical given this explanation (the book goes into greater detail as per the explanation)
Ive been reading a collection of critical esssays called "the end of everything: postmodernism and the vanishing of the human". Very interesting btw. The first article deals with Lyotards view of humanism and where we are heading in terms of evolution of a species - culturally speaking.
It talks about evolution, humans and technology. I had a chance to flesh some of the ideas out with Kathleen yesterday, and she got me thinking about it....the article talks about human's marriage with technology to enhance (or aid) human health etc. In terms of a natural evolution of human form over time, where does technological enhancement fit in? A question raised in the article, is what is the ratio of technology to human flesh to constitute remaining a human? Cyborg rights anyone??
Is this the next evolutional split since Homo Habilis/Erectus/Sapiens? Are we diverging towards a split of Sapien?Cyborg? To be fair, Lyotard (and the critical author Will Self) discusses the boundaries for cyborgs - if the technology cant "think" for itself, then it is purely enhancement which, no matter how bound we are with technology, we still control it - regardless of concepts of technological malfunctions.
Where does artificial organs fit into this picture? Between the 'natural' and the 'cyborg'? Where does artificial organs fit in the evolutional stage of human reproduction? At least with pure technology (in forms of metal etc) when reproduced still creates a non "cyborg" body (since the technology is added to the surface - inside or out) .. But artificial body parts...hmm..although rationally i would say that it makes no difference - but regardless, i think this whole concept of human intervention to this extreme is sticking one big stick in the spokes of the wheel of natural evolution (if you believe in that stuff hehe)
posted by Kelly at
08:31
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home