An idea that Clark did not address in his discussion was the access to this new technology. I agree with Clark that humans are “primed” to use tools or technology, especially if we think of tools in a broader sense than just electronics; however I am not sure if that predisposition will translate into the kind of future he described in his hypothetical diary. He implies that our integration with machines is a natural process but to me it seems that if new technologies are developed that integrate body with tools those with more money, power, and connections will have access to these new technologies. Isn’t it possible that these new technologies could create a further divide between haves and have nots?

 Our discussion of perspectives this week reminded me of a scene from a book I read by A.J. Jacobs, called The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to follow the Bible as Literally as Possible. When incest was brought up in discussion, there were several extreme yet wildly different reactions to this taboo. This discrepancy called to mind Jacobs's book, which details Jacobs's attempt to follow every single rule in the Bible.

 Hi, my name is Tapashi and I am a sophomore at Bryn Mawr. I am a math major but I have a ton of other interests as well which I'm trying to incorporate during my time at Bryn Mawr. I love chocolate. I tend to be random at times.

 Part of our discussion this week centered on the nature versus nurture debate, and whether humans are, as Clark claims, “primed to seek … nonbiological [sic] resources” (6). I agree that we are easily able to adopt and adapt to new technologies and survival aids; in other words, “primed” to use tools that suit our needs. As our needs change and grow more complex, so do our tools. However, I take issue with Clark's claim because it reflects only one part of human nature (however one decides to define “human”).

I’ve had glasses since 4th grade. When you have something on your face for that long, it becomes part of your physical appearance. You stop seeing the glasses in the mirror and just see your face.  When I wear contacts, I feel like my face looks puffy and deformed- like there is something missing. And in a sense, there is. My glasses are a part of me- I define myself as a “glasses-wearer.” When people meet me, I wonder if they look at me and prominently see the glasses. Do the glasses eventually fade into my face for other people like they do to me? Or do people always see my glasses and me as separate entities?

During Tuesday's class, Prof. Grobstein asked for positive retellings of the story of evolution. It struck me as interesting that, when asked to justify our retellings, many members of the class described the positive aspects from an entirely human perspective; it also struck me as interesting that, in denouncing these retellings, many members of the class continued to react from an entirely human perspective. As far as we had read in "On the Origin of Species," Darwin had not directly discussed the consequences of the theory of evolution on our species' development. Yet there we were, squabbling about the morality of selective evolution, about the vestigial characteristics of the human body, about the destructive progress of mankind.

          One thing from the previous class that struck me was Clark's criticism of Evolutionary Psychology in relation to humans being natural-born cyborgs. Although he criticizes the field, I feel that in reality it supports his point. It seems evident to me that we have evolved to seek out the use of tools to improve our quality of life. First we created ways to sustain life using tools to kill or gather food, build shelter, and protect ourselves from the elements. After our survival needs were met we continued to search for and create ways to use technology to make our lives easier or better—otherwise we would still be living as cave people.

Class is itself an experiment in a particular form of education: co-constructive inquiry