In Defense of Cyborgs

The best way to improve this essay, in my view, is to remove the strawman (anti-technological anti-modernism). You don't benefit much from dialogue with those you don't respect, and the reader does not benefit from what is essentially a fight you have fixed against unworthy adversaries. If you meant to take this point of view seriously, I suppose, Martin Heidegger is a better interlocutor than some self-supposed "bronze age pervert." We don't need the imprecisely-used metaphor of the "cyborg," which once again erroneously individualizes what is essentially a change in the developmental condition of our collective nervous system, if we accept the premise all non-straw readers start from, which is that the technologies around us are, however malleably, part of our lives.

It's the extent of that malleability that matters. To either estimate or affect the property of the material, software, we would need to understand it. But you have no technology whatever in your defense of technology. If we live not in the bronze age but in the software age, we learn nothing about its actual primary constituent here.

I assigned Shoshana Zuboff's Age of Surveillance Capitalism to help you and our colleagues write about issues like these. It's time you did some of that reading, I believe.