Haraway Response: John, Chris and Tomer

The main idea in this text is the "cyborg" and how it relates to questions of gender, Marxism and technology, among other things.
The cyborg in Haraway's universe is not confined to the science fiction definition.
That of a half android half human creation. She does some comparisons with that definition, but ultimately she refers to cyborg as anything that is "more" then simply human. Wether it be by machine implants or something far more abstract. When what makes us human is fused with something else, some addition, something alien, we become a "cyborg". In our opinion, in this text there are two different types of "cyborgs". The actual cyborg and the analogy of the cyborg.

The analogy of the cyborg is used in Haraway's text to analyze complex issues. Just like the cyborg is not just one being (he is the fusing of two or more entities), so are women and the question of feminizm, not one dimensional.
Woman cannot be named, generalized, totalized around a particular set of features—because she is fractured by differences (ethnicity, social standing, wealth, sexuality).
The analogy is taken further with the example of "women of color". These need to deal with questions of ethnic opression in adition to gender opression.

The cyborg itself is a creature bred from capitalism and patriarchy. As such it side steps many of the concepts which make us human. Even though the "cyborg" may have started out no different then any human, by becoming "cyborg" he loses much: The search for religion, the fear of death, insistence upon consistency and completeness, natural reproduction and many more.
By fusing man and machine we take upon ourselves the godlike task of creation.
Our question is: As fusing man and machine becomes technologicly inevitable, when does one lose our humanity? When tecnological boundaries are no longer an obstacle, how will we be able to tell human from elaborate simulation? What is it that makes us human?