While both exoskeletons and cyborgization are technologies that seek to overcome the physical limitations of the human body, they have subtle yet crucial differences in their goals and methods. The boundary between these two technologies goes beyond a simple technical distinction, raising fundamental questions about human identity.

Exoskeletons: The Realm of ‘Assistance’

An exoskeleton is a robotic device worn on the outside of the body to assist or enhance muscle strength. It is more of a ‘tool’ that helps existing bodily functions be performed more efficiently, rather than replacing or modifying the function itself. For instance, a walking-assist exoskeleton for a person with paraplegia doesn’t replace the function of their legs; it helps their legs move so they can walk. A military exoskeleton enhances a soldier’s strength to help them carry heavy equipment more easily, but it doesn’t replace their arms and legs.

The key to exoskeletons is their ‘externality’. An exoskeleton is an external device that can be separated from the body. It can be put on and taken off, and it doesn’t fundamentally change the wearer’s physical structure. Therefore, the person wearing an exoskeleton still maintains their identity as ‘themselves.’ The exoskeleton is merely a tool that extends their body, not something they become. This is similar to a carpenter using a hammer or a person wearing glasses. The hammer extends the carpenter’s ability, but the carpenter isn’t identified with the hammer, just as glasses don’t define the wearer’s identity.

Cyborgization: The Realm of ‘Integration’

In contrast, cyborgization refers to the ‘integration’ of technology as a part of the body. It goes beyond simple assistance, replacing a bodily function or adding a new one. Examples of cyborg technology include artificial hearts, bionic eyes, and prosthetic limbs. These technologies don’t just assist the body from the outside; they become a part of the body and operate as such. For example, a person with an artificial limb can move it naturally and feel sensations as if it were their own arm. Such artificial organs cannot be separated from the body and become an essential part of the wearer’s life or survival.

The core of cyborgization is its ‘internality’. As technology is internalized as a part of the body, the boundary between human and machine becomes blurred. This raises the question of how far the identity of ‘I’ extends. Is a person with an artificial heart still human? If a person sees the world through bionic eyes, does this change in the experience of ‘seeing’ constitute a change in identity? Cyborgization attempts to redefine human existence itself by going beyond the limits of the biological body.

The Blurring Boundary and Future Ethical Challenges

While the boundary between exoskeletons and cyborgization seems clear for now, it will become increasingly blurry as technology advances. For example, if a miniature exoskeleton is developed that attaches directly to the skin and connects to the nervous system, could it still be classified as merely an ‘external device’? Or if brain-computer interface (BCI) technology allows a person to control an exoskeleton with just a thought, the exoskeleton would feel like an extension of the wearer’s own body.

Such technological progress raises several ethical and social questions:

1. Redefining Human Identity: If technology integrated into the body affects human senses, memory, and cognitive abilities, what becomes the standard for ‘humanity’?

2. Social Inequality: When body-enhancement technologies become commonplace, the gap between those who can access them and those who can’t will widen. This could create a new kind of social hierarchy.

3. Autonomy and Control: If technology embedded in the body is hacked or malfunctions, how can a person’s autonomy be guaranteed?

In conclusion, exoskeletons represent technology as a ‘tool to assist humans,’ while cyborgization represents technology as an ‘attempt to reconstruct humans.’ The distinction lies in the difference between ‘externality’ and ‘internality.’ However, technological advancements are eroding this boundary, which means we must deeply reflect on the concepts of ‘human’ and ‘identity.’ In the future, a serious discussion is needed about how technology will not just make our lives more convenient, but how it will change our very existence.