I believe it is of crucial importance to stress that, however useful the metaphor of the cyborg may be to a potential deconstruction of binary oppositions of human versus machine and culture versus nature, and of thinking in a more effective way of the relations between organisms and machines, we need to explore in what ways this cyborg figure seduces us and what are the historical, social and cultural implications in a particular context of this 'seduction'. As Donna Haraway points out herself: the cyborg is really the 'illigitimate offspring' of the military and corporate capitalism. When we buy into the cyborg, how much are we then buying into those latter heritages? How much are our desires of a blending of human and machine entangled in our desires produced by the machinery of Western late-capitalism that seeks to create, as for instance Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" has claimed, a sense of lack just to keep itself going?

One answer to these questions in my opinion would lay in a careful investigation of what the implications of the new technologies in their situated contexts really are in terms of gender, ethnicity, class geographical location and so on. Where and how do they in- and exlude? Very useful material is provided by for instance Manuel Castells, who claims that in the Internet's creation of a space of flows, the excluded become irrelevant to society at large, and small elites may move out large amounts of investment money in a blink of an eye. Was Enzenberger right when he implied that the open potential of the new media would only thrive in a 'free socialist society'?