Just Looking ...

In his chapter on biocybernetics, Mitchel links his notion of biocybernetics to Benjamin's mechanical reproduction through his proposition that the former replaces the latter . This triggered some questions for me. In The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Benjamins contends that mechanical reproductions lack the 'aura' possessed by the original. So, working with Mitchel's proposition, do biocybernetic reproductions really have an aura considering they only look like and sound like the 'original'? Does the reproduction become its own original given its unique posssession of both the characteristics of the orignial and improvements? Perhaps, this latter questions gives rise to the pause/hesitation/consternation in answer to Professor Kalmar's question about whether we would clone ourselves. And, what are the implications of genetic engineering on the politics of recognition and rights. I realize that these question aren't novel. But, if we have actually moved beyond imagining and fantasy and are in fact, as Mitchel claims, in the age of biocybernetics during which we are (re)producing life forms or ways of life/being, for me, these questions move from the philosophical and ethical realm to the realm of immediate empirical relevance.

Ty