Our growing dependence on technology is, and always has been, irreversible. There is no going back without paying a terrible price. Everything we consume is created, organised and delivered by machines and networks. There are now too many people and not enough rabbits and berries to support the populace - without modern technology most of us would die.

How strange then, that we live in a society where technological ignorance is so often lauded and even celebrated. But the people who deny technology are not only an impediment to progress and rational decision-making, they are a risk to all about them. Invoking superstitious or emotional reactions to apparently complex situations can be both expensive and dangerous. We all have a responsibility to keep on top of change, to keep educated. We can no longer afford to opt out, because there is no escape.

When faced with death, or the prospect of a seriously degraded quality of life, even the most ardent technophobes and anti-vivisectionists do not refuse an artificial implant. At this point replacement hearts, lungs, livers and kidneys rescued from other humans are no longer an issue or big news.

The reality is that despite professed reservations, the immediacy of death prompts the vast majority to opt for life-saving technology, no matter what its origins. It is not too difficult, therefore, to envisage a creeping evolution towards a cyborg world of partly artificial people. It already looks as though some 30 per cent of our bodies can be replaced, artificially repaired or modified to advantage.

If asked to choose between a human or robotic surgeon, a joint of pork or beef, coal or atomic power generation, most would make the wrong decision. And yet robotic surgeons can achieve precision orders of magnitude higher than any human; eating beef is far less risky than crossing the road; and burning coal does untold damage to us and the planet.

People get alarmed at the prospect of silicon implants for humans, but happily put their names down for silicone implants. On the one hand the material is inert and safe, and on the other there are very definite risks. So our society debates in favour of some ideal of physical perfection, and against the potential to repair damaged human beings.

On the basis of such wisdom we now see beneficial research restricted and curtailed, as Homo ludditus emerges with a call to stop progress. Do we really want to slide back to the dark ages when fear and mystery of the unknown ruled our lives? Or do we want to understand more so we can make wise decisions?

To progress as a species we need society to be better educated, with a more symbiotic relationship with technology. It is vital that more people understand the fundamentals. Otherwise we shall be relegated to a second-rate, disabled species.

Peter Cochrane holds the Collier Chair for the Public Understanding of Science & Technology at the University of Bristol. His home page is:
http://cochrane.org.uk