Last night, i caught the last few minutes of a PBS show, Beyond Human, devoted to the prospective "cyborg revolution," the brink of which human culture presently stands.

Most of us, i'm sure, have seen some of the technology they were previewing, like portable internet headsets which go so far as to allow your friends to view the world from your perspective. Also shown were some military drills, experimental war games which take advantage of a rifle whose camera allows a whole battalion (if that's the right word--maybe platoon, whichever is the more close-knit group) see around corners before charging into uncertain area.

And that's all neat (except for maybe the potential to "zone" out on the Net while jogging, and maybe running in front of a car--that would be bad). What surprised me was testimony and theory from the experts and scientists working on this stuff. They actually consider this an evolutionary leap for humankind, and said as much.

Even if we went so far as Johnny Mnemonic, implanting chips and grafting artificial limbs, does such technology really equal evolutionary advancement? Maybe my definition of evolution is too limited--i don't know. I look at it as something physiological, something one's offspring would necessarily be born with and could not lose except by the further evolution or digression of succeeding generations.

But i guess it just depends on whether knowledge like how to build a pyramid is considered evolutionary advancement or merely unecessary skill. I have a hard time accepting that we are growing into not being able to live without computer technology.

So what do you guys think?

Penny *for one, maybe, not using circular logic* stamp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~