This example illustrates Herr taking the development of his prosthetic limbs through the four stages human-machine relationships (Grey et al, 1995 in Miller, 2011): restorative, normalising, enhancing and reconfiguring.
The issue of when bionics moves beyond normalisation has been raised in competitive sport, yet this ignores the less than level playing field that exists in other aspects of an athlete’s situation (e.g. coaching, training facilities, nutrition); why is enhancing bionically a step too far?
A similar situation exists with the use of “smart drugs” (by students) where a red flag is raised when it appears to go beyond normalisation, ignoring the existing lack of parity between students and the permitted ways to enhance one’s performance (e.g. private tutoring) not being available to all.
Who is it that decides the type of cyborg we are permitted to become and as this becomes more available, will we as individuals get to choose not to augment ourselves, and if we do not how will this be read? How does this work with or against existing cultures and views on the human bodyand what might be done to/with it? And as availability to bionics will never be universal, will this just create a new underclass?
