Nanotechnology transcribes to the side of Hayles‘ article talking about the absolute change within a people’s society, politics, technology and culture within the posthuman context. These times, the body itself can be implanted by the net result of thousands of years of evolutionary technological advancement. Although the goals proposed by nanotechnicians are that of human convenience and health benefactors, speculation is being critiqued on the other unknown possibilities the technology can propose. The main speculation is the humane tendency to keep control, or in this case, gain more control, as such with governing powers onto it’s governed people.
In my opinion, the fact that scientists are still continuing to make machines that benefit the concept of being human (mainly the lust to live longer and gain more power) supports Hayles’ argument of posthuman to be defined away from anti-human and apocalyptic and more towards the long-range survival of life forms. Developing power would be pointless if we were only to experience a small portion of it within our short lives. I believe modern man ceases to believe (or maybe even ignores) the opposing posthuman apocalyptic view because it’s in his nature to be risky (e.g. developing the atomic bomb) and they fear not something that they have created for they would believe anything that they built, they could easily take it apart. I’m sure inventors, in the back of their minds, would dare not create an artificial intelligence who’s power would surpass their own. But in the case of a man dumbfounded by his own lust for power, I’m also sure no matter how perfect he tries to make his inventions, they will always remain imperfect because the creator himself is imperfect. If anything, it’s downfall would just be a predecessor smarter than it’s creator, which in Hayles’ essay, could easily come out from humanity’s beautiful process of evolutionary creation through randomness and chaos.