Cyborganic Redundancy: Nature, Naturalness, and Novelty

The term cyborg, seems, in a way, redundant. Humans and technology have coexisted since we could first be called human. It is one of the defining features that separates us and certain fellow primates from the rest of the animal kingdom. The primary, if not sole aim of technology is to extend and remedy humans' capabilities.

By this logic, we have always been cyborgs, and there is nothing to be gained from calling us such. However, the notion of the cyborg has received currency in both academic discourse and popular culture, and thus must be assumed to have some merit, or at least a set of defining features.

There is a common stigma surrounding cyborganicity that it is in some fashion 'unnatural', as if the cyborg were some inhuman tryst between machine and man. However, such circumstances are part of what define the current human condition.

Is it unnatural that I cannot make intelligible marks on paper with my hands alone and must instead rely on a device containing ink? What of the fact that I require a precisely shaped piece of metal to gain access to my dwelling?

Am I a perhaps a cyborg because I attach a device to my wrist which enables me to arrive at meetings on time?

If we assume natural to mean 'produced by nature without the aid of humans', then, certainly, none of this is natural, along with the entirety of human culture. If, instead, we take natural to mean 'accepted and not seen as unusual', then arguably all of this is natural, as it has become integrated into our common experience.

What is the exception here is the very latest in technology — that which is yet to be assimilated into to human culture. Novelty is thus the defining characteristic of cyborgs. Those who are at the very cutting edge of technology, before such technology has any presence in the mainstream whatsoever, will continually be seen as cyborgs, until the time when said technology simply fades into what is human life.