You could argue that we started down the road towards cybernetic humanity with the invention of the pacemaker; it is likely that future technology will replace various organs until the lines between human and machine become blurred anyway. Instinctively I want to argue against plugging ourselves into the national grid, but I can think of no logical basis for such an argument. If absorbing implants into our bodies or minds saves lives, or allows for a more efficient society that is able to spread peacufully through the solar system, then I gotta say go with it. Plus I can imagine some temptingly cool add-ons that would make life lotsa fun; at least until the quiz-show people catch on. If we do choose to augment ourselves there will be teething troubles as we redefine our societies, but isn’t that true of any changes we may make? Surely we want to continue to evolve, to try and design a better future, not just call the level we have already reached the top. Perhaps part of the conflicting opinions on this subject arise from our not having defined as a race what being human actually means. Isaac Asimov, in his story the Bicentennial Man, had a robot that learned to think for itself that had to bring about it’s (his?) own destruction before a court ruled that the primary qualification to be called human was possessing the desire to be defined as human, with all the rights and responsibilities that that entails. (I hope I remember the story correctly, if not – oops!) I’m sure that there will be arguments about how much machinery we are allowed to contain and still be called humans, but I believe that these will be resolved, at least as long as people still look like people. It would be a good idea though if we started thinking about this now, laying down some ground rules and making sure that some hacker won’t be able to reprogram our implants. I also wonder if something qualifies as an enhancement if it overcomplicates what is essentially a tried and tested package – i.e. the human body. In its present form you can do quite a lot to a body before it fails, the more you tinker with it, the more likely it is to be susceptible to breaking down. If an implant fails will we get headaches or heart failures? And do the risks outweigh the benefits or vice versa? As for the machines taking us over, much as it is a well-loved theme of the SF writer I have to consider it unlikely as even the smartest computers are still idiots that only follow explicit instructions. Sure A.I.’s may develop sinister designs, but why would they? Incidentally, there are tests to establish whether Artificial Intelligence exists in it’s own, free-thinking, right but does anyone know of any laws to protect it when it has been discovered? Sorry I’ve rattled on so long and said so little, if I think of anything more coherent and germane I’ll tuck it in here. I also reserve the right to contradict myself, so there.