DIGC335 - If This is the Future, Where Are All the Cyborgs?

When first encountering 'Johnny Mnemonic' (Gibson 1988), my first  reaction was one of disbelief, stemming from my utter enjoyment of a prescribed course reading. Guns, cyborgs and ­­­futuristic technology in a post-industrial, ‘cyberpunk’ dystopia? Yes please! I pleasurably perused the ‘.pdf’ in an addictive manner easily mistakable for leisure, and for this incredibly engaging e-reading I must thank Graham.

While enjoyable, this was still an academic exercise and I found myself resonating with a number of tropes unique to ‘cyperpunk’ culture that were later defined for me in Tomas’ (2000) examination of ‘technicity’ in the Gibson canon. I found myself fixated on a central notion of Gibson’s (1988) work, and particularly focussed on it in Tomas’ (2000, p.176); the idea of the ‘technophilic body’, involving “aesthetic and functional transformations directed to the human body's surface and functional organic structure.” This fascinates me because I would love to see it become a reality but at the same time, I do not believe that it will.

During our class discussions of the ‘memex’ (Bush 1945) and subsequent discussions about technological prophecy, I’ve begun to formulate my own position on the matter. Using past technological advancement as a base, it is easy for those looking forward to become swept up in endless possibility, formulating a future that while feasible, becomes increasingly implausible as technology continues to advance. Forms of bodily modification, whether they be Bush’s (1945) notions of mind control or realisations of the ‘technophilic’ body (Gibson 1988, Tomas 2000), are indeed feasible with even current technology, but it seems that the consumerist nature of our society largely governs the direction of technological advancement, and, in my opinion, there is very little demand for such direct integration of technology.

Medical marvels such as the cochlear implant prove that we have the technology to begin realising the dreams of visionaries such as Bush or Gibson, yet I see no public outcry demanding further exploration of this avenue in ways closer to Tomas’ ‘technophilic body’ (2000, p.176). This could possibly be explained by cultural acceptance and the morality of modifying what it is to be human, but even if this were the case, there are many who act outside of common morality, and I believe we would be well on our way to ‘technicity’ by now if this were all that stood in the way. Of course I could simply be speaking from the pessimistic side of the prophetic coin and am open to debate on what the future may hold, while remaining quietly hopeful that I am wrong.

References:

Bush, V 1945, ‘As We May Think’, Atlantic Monthly, vol.176, no.1, pp.101-108

Gibson, W 1988, ‘Johnny Mnemonic’, Burning Chrome, Grafton, London, pp. 14-36

Tomas, D 2000, ‘The technophilic body: on technicity in William Gibson's cyborg culture’, in Bell, D and Kennedy, B (eds.), The Cybercultures Reader, Routledge, London, pp. 175-189