You also become a cyborg when you get a splinter or step on a nail.

That is just the actual definition. I would say both examples you give are clear cut. Tattoos are not cybernetic they do not enhance any human ability and I think it would becomes a bit pedantic to suggest aesthetics count in this :p

A permanent implant that allows you to see in the dark would be a cybernetic implant wearing night vision goggles is not. There are some grey areas around as things change I would agree with that, but the use of external tools is not one of them - using glasses, tools, crutches, binoculars etc is not, by any definition, cybernetic which was my main point really.

Easy: Disassemble the homeless and use their parts to improve the rich and feed the leftovers to farm animals.

Your not supposed to know their plans!

Soylent Green is coming...

This. These technologies are being developed for the ill and the disabled, not for 'fun'. Many of them are about improving the quality of life for the disabled, and some can save lives.

'Tool use' is not the same as 'cybernetics'. Anything you can pick up and put down is a tool. Humans and even some animals have been using tools for a long time.

Cybernetics are things that are installed in the body and can not be easily removed. We have already crossed the line into this with a pace maker for the heart. As time goes on and tech improves we will see more of this.

The thing that worries me are the social consequences of genetic and cybernetic improvements. These improvements will be expensive, so only the rich will be able to take advantage of them. This poses a big problem. Two divergent species.

In our evolutionary history, whenever more than one type of human existed at the same time, the superior one either wipes out (through breeding or killing) the other, or they enslave the inferior. In recorded history, no ethnic group has proven to be superior to any other and racial prejudice is an erroneous human construct. However, what if the rich genetically engineer themselves to actually be superior to everyone else? What happens next? Will the rest of us quietly allow them to dominate us? Some would argue that people already allow the rich to dominate us economically, so what is the difference? True. However, right now the only thing the rich have that everyone else does not is just money. What if they also possessed superior abilities? Then they would feel justified in their discrimination.

I see a great struggle ahead for the entire human race.

It's called being post-human or trans-human. It might work well if seamlessly integrated but otherwise you end up looking like an abomination.

Still, there is a lot of promise that something like nano-technology holds.With nanotech there is no need for such incessant paranoia. Imagine, tiny cellular robots constantly protecting you from cellular de-generation. We would be young forever and ageing would be a thing of the past. Despite the implications, it is unlikely that the mainstream would ever have access to such technology.

It would make for some interesting changes in sports, to be sure, either ending many sports as we now know them or by leading to the creation of parallel "enhanced leagues".

I'm more concerned by Google glass having built in face recognition and a database of people that may or may not have consented to having their information in the database for creeps and pervs to look up.

Unfortunately,by the time the average FB user understands the consequences the rest of us are going to be out of luck.
Yep, my aunt is a cyborg. She got a cochlear implant some years back that technically makes here a cyborg.

It is natural to fear the unknown, evolutionary left over... Still has it's uses.

However being a Democratic Transhumanist, I am all for modification or augmentation of the human body. As long as the parties involved have a choice. And in general the technology is used to enhance lives, not deprive them.

I personally understand people's fear of such things, I was born in the 80's. To me privacy means something more sacrosanct than it does to today's general youth. Or those who espouse a new technological and societal revolution through social media. I fundamentally understand the principles at play in those avenues of thought and philosophy. Certainly the world would be a better place if it was more open, transparent, free?

Change can be frightening, and its rational to be cautious in this world. However the ability to affect one's life for the better through prosthetic, artifical organs, genetic treatments, nano technology, is a good thing. But the fear is that at some point these technologies as they improve will become superior to the average stock. And people will be left behind. Granted this is decades away, and may never come to pass. Fear generally precedes the action or consequence.

The world is about change, it is like lightning: fast, bright, and of a great ferocity. These things can frighten us, and this is why discussion is both democratic and valuable. But in the end we must all hope that when the darkness dawns, no matter what it may be: Rational or Irrational. There are those of us who stand against it.

Interesting. Didn't know these things already exist, let alone are being used. My mom lost her hearing on one ear, I always dreamed of her regaining the ability to hear on both ears one day through an implant like this one. Now, if only I were a rich fuck...

Btw, I wonder, does an inflatable penis make someone a cyborg?

Considering that Google doesn't allow such applications, I'm not too worried about that. Though frankly that's the one killer app I'd love, an app that would tell me the names of all the people I see and where I know them from.

What Google says and what Google does are two different things. After all, even organizations that were legally bound to respect their users' privacy have also been giving sensitive data to intelligence agencies. The crappiest thing would be if some secretive organizations actually did get to use Google's technology this way while the public weren't aware of that. Plus Google generally has a "we do because we can" philosophy and additionally tends to accuse others of evil practices while following them themselves. Promising that this use of Google Glass will not be possible for ethical reasons, while it's technically perfectly possible, isn't quite enough to convince me that nobody is ever going to use it. All I'm sure of is that the average consumer isn't going to be able to do it out of the box.

That would kill one of the things I love about watching movies and TV. The "Where do I know this actor from?" game. My cellphone has already partly ruined the game, because I can't go more than ten minutes without knowing.

I only look forward to my superhuman vision. My eyes have always sucked and I would love to have superior vision. Although, with how my knees and ankles can become painful...robot legs and arms would be welcome as well. Ooh robot arms, imagine the fragfests involved after that procedure.