> And that's all neat (except for maybe the potential to "zone" out on the Net while jogging, and maybe running in front of a car--that would be bad). What surprised me was testimony and theory from the experts and scientists working on this stuff. They actually consider this an evolutionary leap for humankind, and said as much.
>
> Even if we went so far as Johnny Mnemonic, implanting chips and grafting artificial limbs, does such technology really equal evolutionary advancement? Maybe my definition of evolution is too limited--i don't know. I look at it as something physiological, something one's offspring would necessarily be born with and could not lose except by the further evolution or digression of succeeding generations.

> Penny *for one, maybe, not using circular logic* stamp

I tend to think it would be evolution. Sort of. Nonbiological change is still change. Naturally, (or unnaturally?) this type of evolution wouldn't be quite the same breed, because, while it would be undergoing continual revision, it would be entirely guided from start to finish and every step in between. Perhaps, then, to avoid confusion, a new term should be chosen. "Progression" lost the verbal wars to evolution a couple centuries ago, but it would be my vote for the word to use in this case. We already use it for other areas of technology.

gab"So would we call genetically modified people 'Progressives'?"by