Daverson said:
romanator0 said:
I want to know why this guy needs special rights. It's not like he's being discriminated against because of what he has attached to his head is he? He's just a regular guy with some computer parts attached to him.
Except Cyborgs have been discriminated against. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/07/17/cyborg-discrimination-scientist-says-mcdonalds-staff-tried-to-pull-off-his-google-glass-like-eyepiece-then-threw-him-out/]
Last year there was a great conference I went to on human augmentation called Our Post-Human Future where they discussed the implications of cybernetics and improved prosthetics (i.e. questions like if a handicap athlete performed at a level equal to or greater then an Olympic athlete, then why should they be limited to the Paraolympics, stuff like that). While discussing the topic of possible discrimination towards cyborgs with an expert, he pointed out that the most likely place that would occur would be in workplaces, particularly industrial settings. If, for example, strength-oriented or information-processing augmentation became more commonplace, the result would be individuals who could out-excel normal workers for the same price. This raises all sorts of questions in regards to access to technology, union responses to human augmentation, rendering 'normal' humans obsolete, etc. Another question is how governments in general would respond to augmentation, whether through heavily regulating it or redefining existing legal documents to create a right to self-modification.
Basically the ultimate point was that when the technology actually becomes more refined and cost-effective we're going to start seeing dramatic social and cultural shifts. Historically speaking this is a breeding ground for discrimination, so I really think Mr. Harbisson is just planning ahead (even if his title of 'first cyborg' is utter self-congratulatory bullshit).