Review of the Internet pornography presentation

In our group presentation, I mainly focus on the advantages of Internet pornography and our group also point out the discussion about whether Internet pornography is ethical or not. Students may only blame the problem on the one side, Internet or the producers who upload porn videos or images. However, I can apply the relationship between human beings and technology (i.e. “cyborg”) to give out a clear explanation about this issue the presentation.

Firstly, we should realize that the function of the Internet’s World Wide Web system. It means if online users post something on the web, the others would watch it with clicking the appropriate address of that website. Then, people can’t blame on the cyberspace to deliver porn videos or images widely.

Secondly, cyberspace aims to provide virtual space for online users to fulfill their satisfactions or desires (sexual desire is included as well) in their imaginary world. That mean people are free to express their (sexual) preferences on the net without legal punishment. So, it also can’t blame the problem on these producers who upload the porn online.

Nevertheless, it is true that the term of “cyborg” is obvious to explicit because porn amateurs or producers need to use webcam, cameras or digital cameras to capture porn images, and then upload them by the computer. Indeed, when the problem of ethical or unethical issue is involved, the morality and ethics of human beings are being presented at the same time. Therefore, one of the reasonable answers to explain this discussion topic is that before the sexual amateurs or producers upload images, they do consider about how it may affect children’s mind towards sex after they watch it. Furthermore, parents should become open-minded to share about what the sex is with their children, and hence to educate them getting a positive and save attitude towards sex.

Gabriel

Critical Annotated Webliography by Julie Lam

Question 3: Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyze some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.

Many of nowadays science or futuristic movie is an adaptation of Frankenstein. Frankenstein is the surname of Victor Frankenstein. He is a scientist who becomes obsessed with the creation of life. Frankenstein play a god-like power, he animated his creation and yet immediately horrified by what he has done. The creature is a horrible monstrosity, a caricature of a man. His hideous looks draw screams everywhere, and even his good acts brought him punishment. He owns a human like outlook but being treated as a non-human object. Frankenstein shuns the creature but soon he felt offensive and seek his creature around to destroy it. Most of the movie both depicted Frankenstein’s monster as a bulky moron but also a humanity with emotion and feeling. The monster originally named as Adam in Mary Shelley’s book, but often shown nameless in the movie.

Story become an artificial creature turns upon to its creator. Such a conflict happened in between human and created science object led to our nowadays’ concern: As the prosperous and rapidly growth science technology, is there a possibility when one day human lose control to it entirely? Since recent “Frankenstein” technologies continues obsess our daily life, let’s see how people look into this.

Frankenstein films: Mad Scientists and Monsters
According to an in-depth analysis of Frankenstein science films, Andreas Rohrmoser listed several futuristic films which mirror from Frankenstein. Such as, one of the best movie about artificial human – Blade Runner (USA, 1982), and also another Frankensteinian product – Robocop (1987). “Artificial human beings and their creators have become a standard ingredient of modern science fiction/horror films and literature”. From past to now, the artificial presented in science film tends of lacking the monstrous and scary features of the Frankenstein’s monster and appear to be more mechanized form as robots, androids and cyborgs. As the phenomenon, the idea and image of Frankenstein does affect the afterward creations of futuristic movie. Which science technology is also being accepted and transform in nowadays.

Literary Essay on Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley
In this source, Jean-Philippe Pellet has overcome some controversial argument between human and scientific knowledge, such as “can science find solutions to all human problems?”, and also she pointed out what makes Frankenstein still being popular today and how it related to our life. It is because, according to Jean’s reading to the story of Frankenstein, in order to achieve his goal, he makes an extensive use of knowledge and science that ultimately led him to desolation, loneliness and result in a complete failure. Jean proven the reason of the popularity of Frankenstein is that “there is something universal in Victor’s attempt to reach this God-like level”. This is human’s aggression towards science and technology. Scientists believed they construct science and technology, and the also have the entire power to control or terminate it. They thought themselves own the ability before God. “Man’s ambition, man’s desire for glory pushes him beyond the ‘human borders”. There, should be no “omnipotent science” in the world.

Technology in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer
Here, Orlin Damyanov cited two science films: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer to discuss the dangerous effects on nature and human life perceived by science and technology. As Orlin’s mentioned about Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to technology and some of the other crucial issues, also the exploration of the dangerous implications of human acts of creation. Technology and human life are being merged together without any consideration on moral stage. However, both authors have been able to clearly predict the consequences of immoral technological utilization. The nature of humanity was unscrupulously to be reconstructing as a mechanical object. Orlin once again described today’s scientist like Frankenstein, shun to think about the consequences of hybridize technology. This make me thing about the cloning technology in this century.

'Frankenstein Science' Row Over Cloned Embryos Plan
"PRO-LIFE campaigners have described a project to clone Britain's first human embryos by North-East scientists as 'Frankenstein science'". So far, technology of cloning is being seen as unethical action. It goes against to the world’s and humanity nature. Some religious scholars said this may blaspheme their god and demolish the circle of life. I am so agree to this article that the manipulation of human life should never be tolerated, no Frankenstein science is needed in this world. Somehow, I appreciated the invention of cloning technology since it is just a basic science technique, and it does help a huge convenience for some patients such as body part implant. I have never feeling proud when the cloning sheep Dolly is being “created”, and so as if one day a cloning human named no matter what is “birth”.

The Frankenstein Syndrome
“The message of Frankenstein that attracted people in 1818 and still energizes us today is: How much is too much in science?” Question upraised by Bob Calverley on USC Health Magazine. There are billions possibilities but there are some that we should never try to get the answer or experiment. Control, is what we need. Bob is talking about currently generic engineering which is seems to be unethical as cloning. These up-to-date technologies are gradually corroding moral standards. Bob indicated that like Anderson stated, educate and inform the public is the only way to protect human from technology.

The Curse of Frankenstein --The Campaign in Defense of Industry and Technology
If you think those generic engineering, or cloning technology is too complicated, too far away from our daily life, so what about the myth of “Frankenfood”? Have you ever think about science of Frankenstein is invading our daily life including what going to eat into our stomach? Compare to many other science technology, genetic food is not something very gorgeous and tremendous. However, how many people know about the harmfulness brought to human? As Robert W. Tracinski dressed in his writing, genetic modify on food is just an easy and beneficial method. This already helps lot of peasants on their agricultural and harvest. This also has been proven with a lot of successful result. For instance, genetic seeds may survive in some place that it should be able to grow, or they may inbuilt a strong defense of harmful insects. Yet, may be some years later, what we eat originally are something that is not possible to be eaten. Horrible?

From all the above, Frankenstein myth, and its theme of the dangers of science consists of unknown number of risks. Science and technology have no doubly improved human life in countless ways. From the steam engine to the pasteurization of milk, from electrical power to antibiotics. On the other hand, human life is indeed on top of the manipulation of science and technologies. Frankenstein has been told and retold, present and represent in hundreds of times, and has probably been adapted in one way or another thousands more. We do not mind if there are more new versions of Frankenstein, but what about next Frankensteinian, “Franken-man”?

References:
1. Andreas Rohrmoser (1999). “Mad Scientists and Monstrous Creations: The Continuation of the Frankenstein Myth in Modern Science Fiction and Horror Films”http://members.inode.at/359743/frankenstein/frankenstein-madprofs.htm (accessed 29 March 2008)
2. Jean-Philippe Pellet (2001). “Literary Essay on Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley” http://www.gymnase-morges.ch/docs/Eleve/frankenstein.html (accessed 30 March 2008)
3. Orlin Damyanov (1996). “Technology in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer” http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/gibson.html (accessed 30 March 2008)
4. Northern Echo (2003). “'Frankenstein Science' Row Over Cloned Embryos Plan” http://health.mappibiz.com/mpelembe/Frankenstein_Science.html (accessed 30 March 2008)
5. Bob Calverley (2001). “THE FRANKENSTEIN SYNDROME” http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/hmm/01fall/frankenstein.html (accessed 30 March 2008)
6. Robert W. Tracinski. “The Curse of Franken” http://www.moraldefense.com/protech/Archives/Curse_of_Frankenstein.htm (accessed 30 March 2008)

Critical Webliography by Adelaide Wong

Question 3: Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyze some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussion of recent technologies.

Technologies help to improve human lives but also destroy human’s identities. Catherine Waldby’s ‘The Instruments of Life: Frankenstein and Cyberculture’ brings out the notion of monstrous imagination of Frankenstein’s monster of Mary Shelley’s story. In order to examine why Frankenstein’s monster launches a wide discussion in society, I would conduct searches of online materials through Yahoo and Google search engines, and six sources written by Sanstone, Gelardi, Sack, Grubbe, Locke and Richard are used for the question.

[1] I think Sanstone’s article is useful as she gives a general picture of the concept of cyborg, which helps me to organize the structure of my essay, as well as elaborate the ideas with its examples. In Sanstone’s article, she tries to explain the concept of cyborg in two dominant perspectives: ‘the cyborg as a reconceptualized post-human body and the cyborg as machine-controlled monster.’ Base on the view of scholars like Clynes, Kline and Haraway, the cyborg is an extension of human body, which is believed to be positive to human body by enhancing human’s capabilities. On the other hand, as cyborg is an integrated entity of machine and human, Santone states the monstrous images of machine / human relationship, which is origin from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Some scholars such as Sherry Turkle and Sandy Stone stress that human heavily rely on technology, which leads to the significant role of machine towards human daily lives. One of the examples is the alternative identities on the internet. In the cyberspace, human characteristics such as race, gender and age are disregarded, and it helps to reconstruct the identity without physical human body. Sanstone also mentions that the reason of ‘human regards cyborg as monster’ is a reflection of technology-phobia. Since the intelligence and automation of cyborg may take over the human brain, cyborg has the potential to liberate to be ‘human’ and even uncontrolled like Frankenstein’s monster or the Terminator.

[2] From Gelardi’s article, I believe that it can explain human’s fears towards technology / humanity in both gender and identity aspect respectively. Gelardi’s article shows the reason why Frankenstein’s monster is imaged as monster by focusing on the genderlessness of Frankenstein’s monster. In the discussion of monstrous image of Frankenstein’s monster, he says that the emergence of Frankenstein’s monster blurs the distinction between human and monster, and the identity of Frankenstein’s monster is ambiguous. It is regarded as a part of human being because of its physical human body; yet, it was not born in human’s womb but created by human dead body with advanced technology in a laboratory. Moreover, Gelardi also points out that even though Frankenstein’s monster looks masculine, its gender is still uncertain. Similar to Haraway’s concept of cyborg, Frankenstein’s monster is created by technology and does not have its biological sex, as well as has no original unity (i.e. not simply born and raised with a family). All these characteristics are conflicting to human being, which threatens human with technology / humanity.

[3] Sack’s article is about the question of the human nature and artificial intelligence, shows that the technology is too powerful to duplicate the ‘human nature’. Sack states that it is easier for us to define the differences between us and them from artificial beings such as cyborgs and replicants, since machine is supposed not to have emotion and spirit. However, with the development of artificial intelligence, machine is indistinguishable from human. Therefore, human starts to worry about the computer acts like a person, and himself as being like a computer. Therefore, Sack uses the example of ELIZA to explain how the ‘Wired-style community’ disregard the man-machine relationship. ELIZA is a computer program could carry on a textual conversation with people by varies replies. Scientists and researches have attempted to merge some human characteristics like the senses, perception and social discourse with computer. As the result, the artificial human perception and sensation of cybernetics would eliminates the artificial / natural boundary and challenges human identity.

[4] In order to give a further explanation on human’s phobia of cyborg or technology, I would use Grubbe’s article as an example to show how technology burring and threatening the human nature. Grubbe’s article gives various living examples on how the technology functioned on human body. Being an expert of biomechanics and tissue engineering, Dr. Meloy and Dr. Warwick shares his experience on implantation of human body. Dr. Meloy pinpoints that it is common to use tools to replace lost functions of human body. For instance, robotic legs, knees and ankle can replace amputated or paralyzed legs, and it is believed that with the aid of machine, the artificial legs will be better than human legs for running in the next decade. It seems that people who disabled benefited from biomechanics, Grubbe states that some people worry that technology would goes nuts, or people would misuse these technology. One of the obvious examples is the creation of fighting machines for military use.

[5] I found that Locke’s article ‘Literary Examples of Man’s Fear of Machine’ is useful, which offers a further discussion on human’s fear on machinery out of control. Locke stresses that machines can be very powerful by enhancing the ability of human being as well as guarding men from harm; on the contrary, it is also resulting in people lacks self-reliance and being manipulated by machines. According to Locke, some writers have realized the rebellion of technology, and express human’s fear of machines through their works. Those storylines are usually about people afraid of machinery rebellion, or people begin to lack social interaction by relying machine for living. At the end of the article, Locke cites a scholar’s saying that “A machine… can be the great Liberator of human drudgery, but it can also be the monster of Doctor Frankenstein's genius", which reaffirms that human should not neglect the hidden machinery crisis with technology flourishes.

[6] Richard’s article ‘Clones, Genes and Faustian Technology’ explores the issue of reproductive cloning in both positive and negative way. In fact, cloning technique is widely used in farming but not animal cloning. However, it is suggested that human cloning should be practiced in order to cure some disease. Though the cloning technology, humans can choose the genes they like based on their genetic structure. Nonetheless, in the aspect of morality, Richard states that human cloning brings out the problem of genetic variability and demean the human nature, which is regarded as diminishing human dignity and morally unacceptable.

In short, the six sources I chose show the reasons why human afraid of the images of cyborg or man-machine as technologies are too powerful, which is similar to the monstrous images of Frankenstein’s monster with negative impacts to society.

Bibliography:

[1] Santone, Jessica (2003) ‘cyborg’ http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/glossary/cyborg.htm (accessed 29 March 2008)

[2] Gelardi, R. Adrienne (2006). ‘Parallels Between Frankenstein and the Cyborg’
http://www.kristinscott.net/gelardi.html (accessed 29 March 2008)


[3] Sack, Warren. (1998) ‘Artificial Human Nature’. http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/artificial_human_nature.html#fnB11 (accessed 29 March 2008)

[4] Grubbe, H. Charlotte. (2007) ‘The Blade Runner Generation’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2079637.ece (accessed 30 March 2008)

[5] Locke, Amber. ‘Literary Examples of Man's Fear of Machine’http://www.mindmined.com/public_library/nonfiction/amber_locke_mans_fear_of_machine.html (accessed 30 March 2008)

[6] Richards, J. Robert (2004) ‘Clones, Genes and Faustian Technology’ http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190263/ (accessed 30 March 2008)

Critical Annotated Webliography by Cody Wan

Guiding Question 3:
Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.

Introduction
In the beginning, technology is helping people to improve our daily life and raise our living standard. However, after we are increasing the technology skills such as cloning animal, creating the robots army, genetic engineering, xeno-transplantation and vitro fertilization techniques. We find that there are still many unknown area in it and those technology are challenge us what is the human purity. When the novel – Frankenstein has been written by Mary Shelley, it is a stock narrative for technology out of human control. As Catherine Waldby said that “The monstrosity of the creature’s body implies the monstrosity of our own.”, actually, the fear of technology mostly is coming from our human ourselves. Therefore, Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies such as biomedicine and bioscience.

Source One – Charity Battles Imaginary Killing Machines
Source from Wired.com, accessed March 28, 2008, written by Sharon Weinberger. This article is talking about the autonomous robots to become killing machines or killer robots. Because many countries are using robots to do landmines, however the robots are the cluster bombs exist in the world. Nowadays, some of the science and technology organizations are making the machine-gun wielding military robots are remotely controlled by soldiers. The US Department of Defense want the robots work without supervision, that mean they can use their artificial intelligence to make their own decisions about when to pull the trigger. In this article, the writers think that there is nothing wrong to develop the technology. It is because the technology can help us to improve our life and protest our human body. However, we should set up some restrictions and have a healthy discussion on how to control these systems. I think it is a good example to show human are afraid those robots out of human control.

Source Two – Technology Fear Factor
Source from KurzweilAI.net, accessed July 21, 2002, written by Daintry Duffy and Sari Kalin. This article has taken notice on different factors of technology fear. There are three futurists – George Gilder, Ray Kurzweil, and Jaron Lanier. They are agreeing that technologies can be used in good and bad ways. They points out that the most dangerous technology is artificial intelligence, biotechnology and nanotechnology. Although those technologies can help us discover miracle drugs, it also can help the terrorists to build super dangerous weapons. Another main point is we are more focus on the privacy and encryption. In the past society, everyone knew what everybody was doing. At now, we are expanding the domains of privacy and encryption and keep the communication private, like terrorists. Privacy is becoming more and more pervasive. Therefore, the technologies are more easily to apply in the destructive purposes. So the main method to solve the fear is using the technology in correct place. Those above writers are suggest that the human should build up our humanity more powerful and keep connection to humanity. Those scholars’s speaking can reinforce the point that technology is dangerous without human control and the solving methods are we.

Source Three – Show your high-tech ID, How does technology shape who we are?
Source from TechnologyReview.com, accessed October 25, 2001, written by Alan Leo. This article makes all the fear of technology to be close to our own identity. It points out that human are always talking an identity, but the identity as something we create. Some fellow scholars discussed how our identities shape and are shaped by new technologies in it. There are contains different new technologies to identify our identity. For example: using the gene and the genome to identify our identity, demonstrated a system to identify people by the way they talk, walk and spot the suspicious behaviors. Unfortunately, those of the new technologies cannot perfectly to identify our identity. It is because the machines can have the same human being such as the robot called Gizmo, it behaves more like a “creature” than tool. Gizmo reacts like a human with facial expression, body language and responds to positive and negative feedback. It shows that the technologies are harm the most basic human purity – identity and are shaped by the technologies.

Source Four – Science: consider it your friend or your enemy?
Source from CSUN.EDU, accessed and written by unknown. This paper talks about technology can help us to cure many human illnesses, but it has been considered harmful to society and extremely influential to civilization. The simply explanation is many of us cannot go out without a mobile phone now. As J. Michael Bishop said that science today is increasingly mistrusted and under attack. Moreover, the science has influenced our lives in ways never imagined before, science developed instruments of war and used for the destruction of humanity, as in Hiroshima with the atomic bomb. Society has become completely depended on technology. Many of us are relying on our technologies. It feels like a part of us. However, it is causing a great harm to our children. Because the children will believe that the virtual toys can know what they feel and understand their thoughts. They think that the toys and games have a brain. They are difficult to distinguish between real and fantasy. Many children believes the robots to be “Sort of alive”, they thinks that the robots have personalities just like humans do. Therefore, it shows that the creatures as a “copy of human”. Those are the simulacrum of our humanity. The technologies will bring out the social problems.

Source Five – New Robots Clone Themselves
Source from Livescience.com, accessed May 11, 2005, written by Michael Schirber. This post told us the new technique in robot, some researchers have built a simple self-replicating robot. Before, we will use the reproduction to discriminate which is technology and human. At now, the robots can make a copy of itself. The self-replicating robots can take care of themselves without any human help. That mean the robot can live alone of themselves, their life become stronger and durable. In the future, if the human cannot control the robots, the robot will have the opportunity to take control of the world. Technologies become more powerful than before.

Source Six – Forward Thinking
Source from ACMqueue.com, accessed December, 2006, written by Charlene O’Hanlon. It told that the humans are not flexible creatures, are technologies. When human feel fear, human are often held back by this scary feeling. Furthermore, too much fear will prevent us from discovering our true talents. However, the technology doesn’t know what fear is. When technology becomes smarter than human a day, man and machine have the same level intelligence. Then technology will evolve to surpass man. But it doesn’t mean human should lose our emotion, should not lose our humanity.

Conclusion
Most of us agree that the creature seems as monster and harm objects in the world. However, who is the creator, is human. If we fear of the technology, we should fear of ourselves. Therefore, human should take the responsibility to control the technologies and use it in right place. On the other hand, the most fears element is the technology product become more similar to us. The technologies such as robot have the similar social practice with us. Then the technology is creating new forms of life. So some of the people argue that the machines should follow our social rules or not. Moreover, it is causing many of social problems, the most influence group is the children. That why we start to fear and discuss of the humanity and technology.

Notes for Written Sources
Waldby, Catherine. “The Instruments of Life: Frankenstein and Cyberculture.” Prefiguring Cybercultures: An Intellectual History. Eds. Darren Tofts, Annemarie Jonson and Alessio Cavalaro. Sydney: Power Publications, 2002 28-37.

Notes for Online Sources
1) Sharon, Weinberger. (2008) “Charity Battles Imaginary Killing Machines.” Retrieved from March 28, 2008, source from http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/charity-will-ba.html

2) Daintry, Duffy and Sari, Kalin.(2002) “Technology Fear Factor.” Retrieved from
July 21, 2002, source from http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0510.html

3) Alan, Leo. (2001) “Show your high-tech ID, How does technology shape who we are?” Retrieved from October 25, 2001, source from http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/12633/

4) CSUN. (2008) “Science: consider it your friend or your enemy?” Retrieved from unknown, source from
http://www.csun.edu/~sa822008/paper3.html

5) Michael, Schirber. (2005) “New Robots Clone Themselves” Retrieved from
May 11, 2005, source from http://www.livescience.com/technology/050511_self_replicator.html

6) Charlene O’Hanlon. (2006) “Forward thinking” Retrieved from December, 2006, source from http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=448

Jessie's Webliography

Question 1: Judy Waczman argues that Donna Haraway's figure of the cyborg has taken on ‘a life of its own’ in popular culture, science fiction and academic writing. In what ways has it been taken up by feminists?

In order to answer the question that how Donna Haraway's figure of the cyborg been taken up by feminists, first, I read the reading of Judy Waczman so as to get the general idea of this topic. Then, I searched with the keywords such as ‘cyborg’, ‘feminist’ and ‘Donna Haraway’ etc. in the online search engines Google and Yahoo as well as in online journal websites. In the process of searching the relevant materials for my guiding question, I found that there have some external links after an article. Some of them are useful and relevant so it can reduce my time to search again in the online search engines or online journal websites. I have also tried to search the materials in HKU Libraries. However, the online sources cannot be accessible on the weblog because the electronic resources have restricted access.

Slavoj Zizek's article‘The Cyberspace Real’ introduces Peter Hoeg's novel called The Woman and the Ape, staging sex with an animal as a fantasy of full sexual relationship. The role of man and woman is that the animal ape is as a rule male whereas the cyborg is as a rule woman. This novel is about the fantasy of Woman-Machine, just likes Blade Runner. The man wants his feminine partner to be a programmed doll rather than a living being whereas the woman wants a strong animal partner. Slavoj argues that the scene of a male ape copulating with a female cyborg is confronting us with an unbearable scene of the ‘ideal couple’. In this kind of science fiction novel, it seems that woman is being marginalized because a living being cannot win acceptance. On the contrary, a cyborg is preferred.

Rosi Braidotti has pointed out some feminist visions on science fiction in her article 'Cyberfeminism with a difference'. Many feminists have turned to both writing and reading science fiction in order to assess the impact of the representation of sexual difference. Braidotti thinks the post-human plight implies a blurring of gender boundaries does not always have advantage of women. To a certain extent, she has the same point of view with other feminists. For example, she has argued that sciene fiction horror films play with fundamental male anxieties and displace it by inventing alternative views of reproduction, thereby manipulating the figure of the female body. She has also mentioned the cyberpunk and argued that it is male dominated. Cyberpunk dreams about the dissolution of the body into the Matrix. Braidotti called feminists and herself as riot girls that they have been persecuted and repressed by Big Mama all their life. The female image is just the image of the caring, nurturing and self-sacrificing. Women cannot be expected to share easily in the fantasy of a return to the Matrix. She has a complaint about lacking of space and time to develop and express their wishes. However, she is still willing to sit down to a good talk in order to negotiate margins of mutual toleration.

‘You Are Cyborg’ written by Hari Kunzru, is discussed the notion of cyborg based on Haraway's document ‘The Cyborg Manifesto’. Feminists around the world have seized on the possibility that women and men can all be reconstructed if they are not natural but are constructed, like a cyborg. And Kunzru mentioned that Cyberfeminism is based on the idea that it is possible to construct your identity, your sexuality, and even your gender in conjunction with technology. Being a cyborg is not just about the freedom to construct yourself but is about networks. Modern citizens are taught to think of themselves as beings who exist inside their heads. We are a collection of networks. We receive a lot of information from the networks and make up our ‘world’. Kunzru said that human beings in the '90s show a surprising willingness to understand themselves as creatures networked together. And the way we talk shows that we know we are really cyborgs. However, Kunzru challenges whether there is a need to seriously believe in this idea. For Haraway, feminist concerns are inside of technology, not a rhetorical overlay. Feminists are talking about cohabitation, such as between organisms and machines.

Kate Phillips has dealt with the concept of Haraway's Cyborg in relation to Feminism in her paper, 'Haraway's Cyborg and Feminism'. The Feminism that mentioned in her paper is referred to the movement to critique the power systems and social structures. Phillips argued that the mind/body split concept conceived by Descartes is problematic in which men were seen to be the rational creatures (the mind), while women were seen as being firmly rooted in the body. She also disagrees with the idea of sensuality towards body. In Feminism, there is a call for reclamation of the body and mind. The use of Cyborg as the tool to accomplish the goal is well proved. Besides, Phillips finds something interesting that some feminists both give in and critique in relation to cyberspace, the Cyborg, technology, and the way in which these may blur boundaries. For her, the Cyborg is ‘decentered.’ ‘Decentering’ is a postmodern concept that means a ways of seeing multiplicities and critiquing the social systems of oppression by seeing the linking's between them. She also states that a Cyborg, while frightening in its implications, is also the most powerful liberator that we can imagine.

Krista Scott's essay ‘The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist & Her Critic’, has explained why feminists should concern with Haraway's vision of the cyborg. Scott has the same concern with Haraway that is some feminists are too quick engaging in ‘anti-science metaphysics and demonology of technology.’ Activists should not mount a defense against technoscience. Cyborg can represent a more positive thing for Scott. She indicated that Haraway hopes to use the cyborg to represent ‘lived social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints.’ To satisfy the problem of cyborg politics upon feminist identities, Scott tends to make an attempt to devise some kind of naturalized self. As identities seem contradictory, partial and strategic, it is difficult to name one's feminism by a single adjective.

Maria Fernandez and Suhail Malik cooperated to write an article, ‘Whatever Happened to the Cyborg Manifesto?’ in order to express their objection against Haraway's ‘The Cyborg Manifesto’. From Fernandez's point of view, the Cyborg Manifesto urged feminists to embrace new technologies as tools for feminist ends was a compelling antidote to the harmful notion that women belonged exclusively to ‘nature’. Malik has even pointed out five complaints towards the notion of cyborg in the article. He thinks that the tendentious appropriation of techno-scientific development as ‘cyborgian’ prohibits a creative understanding of organico-machinic nexus.

In conclusion, I found six online sources for my critical annotated webliography. I would like to discuss the overall feminist thinking on Donna Haraway's concept of the cyborg first. Many feminists disagree with Haraway's idea. However, I still found that there are different opinions towards the notion of the cyborg. I will remain neutral during arguing this guiding question. Therefore, I adopt a comprehensive point of view of feminists, some of my sources are agree with the notion of the cyborg that becomes important and prominent and some are not. The second article is the most important source and in accordance with my direction.


References

Zizek, Slavoj. ‘The Cyberspace Real’, European Graduate School Faculty, http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-cyberspace-real.html [accessed 31 March 2008].

Braidotti, Rosi (1996). ‘Cyberfeminism with a difference’, http://www.let.uu.nl/womens_studies/rosi/cyberfem.htm [accessed 31 March 2008].

Kunzru, Hari (1997). ‘You Are Cyborg’, Wired Magazine, Issue 5.02, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffharaway.html [accessed 31 March 2008].

Phillips, Kate (2007). ‘Haraway’s Cyborg and Feminism’, Associated Content, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/226769/haraways_cyborg_and_feminism.html [accessed 31 March 2008].

Scott, Krista (1997). ‘The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist & Her Critic’, The Feminist eZine, http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/philosophy/Cyborg-Scientist-Feminist.html [accessed 31 March 2008].

Fernandez, Maria and Malik, Suhail (2001). ‘Whatever Happened to the Cyborg Manifesto?’, Mute Magazine, http://www.metamute.org/en/Whatever-Happened-to-the-Cyborg-Manifesto [accessed 31 March 2008].

Critical Annotated Webliography

Question 3: Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyze some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.

In order to analyze the ways that how Frankenstein continues to haunt the recent technologies, first, I used the Electronic Resources which provide by the University of Hong Kong Library. Those databases that I chose are ProQuest, Academic Search Premier, and the Search Engine, such as Yahoo (Hong Kong, Google (Hong Kong) and the E-Newspaper which found in Yahoo Hong Kong News. There were over twenty items after I searched from the database and over one thousands items from the Search Engine. After I read those items and I found the most suitable one to answer the question. “The Probable Future World Forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’, the search term which use in the Google is Frankenstein and technology. “Frankensteins and Cyborgs: Visions of the Global Future in an Age of Technology”, the search term is Frankenstein, humanity and technology in Academic Search Premier. Using the word Frankenstein, technology and humanity in Yahoo, and the article of “Frankenstein Complex: Man's Obsession with & Fear of Technological Advancement” is one of the most suitable one. I used the term “robot” for “Again Japan looks to robots” in Yahoo Hong Kong News. For the database “ProQuest”, I used the search term of “technology, humanity, Frankenstein and cloning” for the article “Cows and Cloned Babies Tax Us” and “Is Rush Into Cloning Another False Scientific Dawn?”

The Probable Future World Forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’ was one of the sources which provide the background information from the story of Frankenstein and how the story creates the name of “monster”. Although people recognize the story of Frankenstein, some of them do not recognize this story. In the article, the author mentions that Mary Shelley gave “a warning of the danger in technological development of modern science of us.” The modern science cannot support those technologies that in the story, however, the scientists develop those technologies in the recent time. And it provides “negative consequences” for the recent scientists.

Frankensteins and Cyborgs: Visions of the Global Future in an Age of Technology mentions how the Frankenstein gives the ideas to the scientists in the development of the machines and gives different examples how the technologies development. It also talks about “what kind of technology” and “what kind of humanity” in the recent and the future time. The examples of the technologies development give the support for an essay. There are the negative aspects for the usage of the recent technology. This is talking about the problems of the technology in the essay.

In Frankenstein Complex: Man's Obsession with & Fear of Technological Advancement, Frankenstein is affecting the ideas of the film producer and the improvement of the technology. “Robotics are by no means new to mankind” because of the film “I Robot”. The monster was created by Frankenstein and it is the same as the scientists create or improve the technology of the robot. In addition, the robot, which use in the house working, we think that they are not dangerous, however, it may not true, just like the story of “I Robot”. The human may have the same situation that we watch in the “I Robot”. The truth is we do not have the ability to control vanguard technology as the technology is powerful. It is one of the negative aspects that the technology is developed too fast.
There is one more example for the robot. Japan is one of the countries which develop different kinds of robots and Aging Japan looks to robots talks about what the robot reduce the government expenditure and the robot is useful in Japan. Toyota, the world's largest car company, would like to produce more robots as the government will subsidize the development of those machines. It is the positive way that people who like to develop the robot technology and they use the robot in daily life. In Japan, there is aging population so one of the robots will look after the elderly. "Robots can be useful, but they cannot come close to overcoming the problem of population decline," the robots will solve numbers of problems while they cannot solve the aging population. It is comparison of the negative way for the robots.

The problem of technologies development is the cloning of the animals and human. Cows and cloned babies tax us is about the cows carry human gene that may destroy after the high court ruling in New Zealand. The cloning sleep, Dolly, was shocked in 1997. The cloned animals affect our morality and rise up the problem of cloning children. The parents like to “order” their children which have better appearance and intelligence. It is the conflict between those who support the cloning animals and oppose the cloning animals. The development of the technology occur the problems that the parent reply on the technology for choosing their children. Maybe everyone is a copy cat from the cloning gene. There is no more unique person in the world. And everyone is the same. It is very frightened as everyone is looking at the same.

In Is rush into cloning another false scientific dawn? there are two different of cloning, “reproductive (making a new animal or human) and thera-peutic (making new cells which can be used for medical purposes including, hopefully, replacing defective cells in humans).” People think that reproductive cloning animals is a new term and it is not. In the 17th century, it was “sheep-blood transfusions” and the scientists consider different methods on cloning animals. We discover that the cloning animals is not the prefect one, the cloning animals still get diseases. The scientists think it was improvement about the cloning animals and reduce the diseases in the world. Is it really solving the problem? It may carry out the other diseases and spread it out. So, people afraid the new disease comes out and it is unsupportable.

All of the source give statements how Frankenstein affect the technologies development and technology how to affecting our daily life. In the recent period, the scientists would like to improve the system of the robots. Robots could helps the human and do everything. Although the robots do different kinds of works in our society, they cannot solve the aging population in the developed countries. The cloning of the animals carry human gene is affecting our morality. Moreover, the true is we cannot control the technology as it is powerful. So, it is fear concerning the technology and humanity.
Reference List:
K, C. (2007). Frankenstein complex: man’s obsession with & fear of technological advancement. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/381828/frankenstein_complex_mans_obsession.html.

Graham, E. L. (2003). Frankensteins and cyborgs: visions of the global future in an age of technology. Studies in Christian Ethics, 16(1). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from Academic Search Premier.

Leader. (2002, January 5). Is rush into cloning another false scientific dawn?. The Scotsman, pp. 13. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from ProQuest.

Liu, K. L. (2003). The probable future world forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’. Retrieved from March 18, 2008, from http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=zh-TW&lr=&q=cache:DVn74DKsF3gJ:www.knu.edu.tw/knu1/web/teach/cge/%25E6%2595%2599%25E8%2582%25B2%25E9%2583%25A8%25E7%25AC%25AC%25E4%25BA%258C%25E6%25A2%25AF%25E6%25AC%25A1%25E8%25A8%2588%25E5%258A%2583/5/paper/03/Frankenstein%2520and%2520The%2520Time%2520Machine.pdf+Frankenstein+and+technology

Waikato (2001, May 7). Cows and cloned babies tax us. Waikato Times, pp. 6. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from ProQuest.

The Standard (2008, January 10). Aging Japan looks to robots. The Standard. Retrieved March 21, 2008 from http://hk.news.yahoo.com/080109/318/2mqj8.html.

Critical Annotated Webliography

Qs.3. Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyze some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.

Our technology is developing too fast in nowadays, it seems technology is become more powerful than human. A fear of the technology would be occurred as the technology has surpassed our humanity. Will the technology replace and take control with the human in the future?

The writer Orlin Damyanov point out in the article [1] Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer as our technology is developing too fast in nowadays, it seems technology is become more powerful than human. A newborn fear would be occurred. Will technology take over and control us in the future? As at the being, Frankenstein was created by human and he is obey and serve the human. However, at last, he has the power to destroy his creator and to resist the human society. It means that technology is becoming a danger thing. If technology was become too powerful, it may lose control and would cause the danger effect. If we haven’t got any solution and take the well balance within the two, technology may cause dangerous effects on nature and our human life. In a worse, the Frankenstein --technology would replace the human and take control with the human in the future.

From John J. Fanning article [2] How Does Technology Affect You? He point out that, technology is totally affect us. As in his article he told us that at Japan's largest telephone company, Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (NT&T) have developed some startling new technology, which call "Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (GVS) ". It can turn humans into remote controlled automatons, as the human brain can be works on the electrical impulses. From this GVS system, we can see that the technology is totally controlling us. We can enter the command to the GVS system and it may release the electrical impulses to then human brains so the human call receive the electrical impulses and take action with this command. As he said “this mind-controlling technology had deprive humans of control over their own mind and body should be worthy of debate as to its very existence.” This is a danger thing that the technology is more powerful than human. As at the beginning, technology is created by human but in nowadays, the situation has been reversed. It seems it is similar to the case of Frankenstein, technology has became resisted human, and technology has been took control of the human. It is the time that we should concern about this moral question of the technology is totally affected or it should said that the technology is totally taking control us.

From [3] Technology vs. Humanity, which is written by a psychotherapist --Michael J. Hurd from the Capitalism Magazine, he point out that the technology has surpassed our humanity. Although the technology is devise and give birth by the human, however, in nowadays, our technology has seems surpassed our humanity. As we were rely in these technologies too much, such as mobile phone, saving medicine, etc. If we hadn’t get these things in our daily life, we seems we will not still alive. The Technology is become so powerful and it seems it is over controlling us. Our daily life is controlling by these technologies. Therefore, at the end of Michael J. Hurd article, he remind us we should not rely on the technologies so much as we may lose our humanity if we were so fascinated in it. He believes that our human mind is the best. As I will talk his point to discuss about we should not let them to over controlling us and we need to talk a balance between the technology and our humanity.

[4] Will technology change humanity, or has it already? is written by Robin Pierro from Canada Free Press. As Robin Pierro was concerning of the people who were following the technology tend so insensitively due to the fast growing of the technology would let us lose our humanity. Nowadays, technology is seems controlling us. As most of the people would like to keep follow the updated technology things such as mobile phone, mp3 players, etc. It seems the technology has became a dominant role. It guides the people to work with it. The technology has been changing our humanity already. The writer said, “People already rely on machines to do things for them to much. Our species is becoming incompetent, because we have machines to do everything for us. In the future I just see it, people will become so lazy and incompetent, and machines will take over.” We may lose control of all other technology advances. As we don’t want to be like that in the future, we should stop and slow down a bit to think about our relationship between technology and us. We should take a balance for it and don’t just follow the tend so dead so we may not let the technology over controlling us.

[5] Humanity Among Technology is written by the free article sharing website—hypnodean.com by Dean Montalbano. In the article, he shares the opinion that we should keep our humanity in this technological world. Nowadays, we can do everything we want at home as we just need to go online and click a button for pay the bill, go shopping and chat with friends, etc. He brings up the idea that our home is just like a personal castle, we trapped ourselves at home and it is also trapped by the technology as he said much of our humanity has gotten swept aside. It decrease the chance for us to communicate with people face to face, it decrease the chance for us to enjoy our natural environment such as our sunshine, the fresh air from the outside, etc. Why we don’t take a chance to talk with people face to face rather than talk with them through the electromagnetic waves. Do we dependent on the technology too much? It seems technology is control over us, so our humanity has been gotten swept aside by the technology. Therefore, we should talk some time to have self-examination to our humanity among technology.

[6] If We Fear Technology, We Really Fear Ourselves is written by Dr William Reville from The Irish Times. As Dr William Reville thinks that technology is natural just as same as natural as human, if we fear the technology, it is fear ourselves. The technology has been appear at the very being of our world such as the people would use a tool to hunt an animal at the past so technology was appearing in a very natural way. However, as our technology was developing in a fastest way, our mind of fear has been appeared. We feared about the technology will over controlling us in the future. At last, Dr William Reville said we no need to fear about our technology because it is natural just as same as natural as human, so we should accept that technology is a natural product of human activity and a natural extension of the human capacity. As we all come from natural, so we should appreciate and to make a well use of our technology.


References:

[1] Orlin Damyanov , Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/gibson.html (accessed 27 March 2008)

[2] John J. Fanning, How Does Technology Affect You?
http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/2325.htm (accessed 28 March 2008)

[3] Michael J. Hurd, Technology vs. Humanity on Capitalism Magazine ( 2001) http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=152 (accessed 28 March 2008)

[4] Robin Pierro, Will technology change humanity, or has it already? (2005)
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/robin022805.htm (accessed 25 March 2008)

[5] Dean Montalbano, Humanity Among Technology on hypnodean.com (2008)
http://www.hypnodean.com/humanity.htm(2/2008) (accessed 25 March 2008)

[6] William Reville, If We Fear Technology, We Really Fear Ourselves on The Irish Times (1999) http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=1988 (accessed 25 March 2008)