Cybernetic Replacements Vs Cloned Bodyparts Vs Natural Death

[masshuu]

Within the next 50 years, aka when some of us will be getting old and have failing body parts, I imagine that there will be some form of replacements, whether it be Cybernetic Replacements(Cyborgs or fully synthetic bodies) or Cloned Body parts(Grow a new spleen!)
I imagine both will exists, as Cloning Body parts will be cheaper and very easy(Depending on what your replacing) Whereas robotic replacements will offer extended/new functionality, will require extensive body modifications and training to get use(Infrared Vision anyone?)

What would you choose and why?
Would you want to replace your body parts and extend your life or would you prefer a natural death when certain organs fail?

I my self would like at the least, use cloned body parts to repair or replace failing organs. I would take robotics for vision in the left eye, leaving the right natural. Otherwise i would not take any robotic replacements for like arms, simply because i feel it would be unnecessary for me. I have nothing against it, I see it being very useful for certain jobs, like police or builder(Built in Nailer/Drill with 2 Ton lifting capacity anyone?)

 

[cybrax]

Hmm, well masshuu that is quite lot of territory.
Covers pretty much everything from 'new bodies for old' right up to having consciousness uploaded into the mainframe.

Would have to say some form of cybernetic or 'wet-ware' interface connecting my brain and perhaps vision centres to a PC. Arthritis brought on by to many years of data entry is starting to take its toll on me. Complete new body would be nice but jacking my brain in seems more do able in the next few years.

 

[dstravelwriter51]

I'd prefer natural death, because in all endings there is a re-beginning, and thus I wouldn't want to miss my next incarnation simply because my emotional baggage in this lifetime makes me want to stay... Though, on the other hand, there is the whole issue of overpopulation. I wouldn't want to give my 1000th generation descendant no place to live. So I think the circle of life should not be tampered with... On the other hand, while immortality would be cool (heck - awesome - are you kidding me?), there are reasons why birth and death exist. We are but on a waystation to the true reality. Life is just one waypoint in many. And unless we realize that we are headed for an Ultimate Destiny of some sort, we're going to live meaningless lives droning for a boss who pays us in paper and not gold, and makes us live paycheck to paycheck for a negated purpose (or no purpose for that matter). I sometimes envy the soldiers; they have a purpose and that is to defend the nation... But I know my life has meaning, as well as purpose, and greater purpose still, since I live to go to the Destiny, and not in circles. You can call Destiny whatever you want: Destiny, Fate, Nirvana (Nibanna), Heaven (Paradise), Brahmin, etc. It's all the same. Final Destination is not really final at all. The true Final Destination is not a destination; it's a state of being. So regards to the cybernetics and cloning: I'd rather live with what I've got, make what I don't have, but need, and not just want, and live contently, simply, and in preparation for a more enlightened existence one million lifetimes from now! Have a nice day. And remember: Cyber or clone or not, Life Gets Better!

 

[misson]

I'll be downloading my mind, since your brain is the one organ that you can't replace. Our race will have remote bodies, sure, and we'll need power plants, but we won't need as much space and other resources as biologicals, so overpopulation won't be as much of a problem. If it ever is, we ship off in interstellar arks. Since we're not biological, the ships can be much simpler.

 

[callumacrae]

Natural death.

Our reliance on technology and medicine has already weakened us as a race already. We're helping new bacteria and viruses breed, and we've effectively stopped, or dramatically slowed, evolution. We're already half baked as it is (example: back problems from not being fully evolved).

ssh root@masshuu
sudo rm -rf /

~Callum

 

[misson]

we've effectively stopped, or dramatically slowed, evolution.

You can't stop evolution ([2]) (which is simply a change in allele frequencies in a population over time) without relying on genetic engineering. For example, even now the frequencies of deleterious genes are increasing as medicine advances. Ease of travel, on the other hand,is making human speciation less likely.

(example: back problems from not being fully evolved)

How can anything be fully evolved? If you mean a species that isn't a transitional form, only evolutionary dead-ends are fully evolved.

 

[kinley3]

I'd prefer natural death. If everybody lives into extreme old age, then the world's population would skyrocket. I won't get into all the problems that would cause because it's obvious enough. What it all boils down to for me is that if me dying a natural death just like billions of people throughout history can help ensure food and shelter for a child, I'm OK with that. Sure, the prospect of dying scares the hell out of me, but there comes a point when technology should not progress further in a certain direction. For me, this would be that point.

 

[misson]

You can't stop evolution [...] without relying on genetic engineering.

I take this back. Even if we were to genetically engineer ourselves (and I'm not saying we should), it would cause a radical change in allele frequencies, so there would still be evolution; engineering is another evolutionary force, rather like selective breeding. Natural selection would merely be downplayed. Sexual selection, genetic drift and other mechanisms would still be strong forces on evolution (sexual selection might even strengthen).

Where are the transhumanists?

 

[Sharky]

More to the point, why is everyone in favour of natural death? That's a horrible way to go; body parts failing, mind not what it used to be, friends dying before you (if you're lucky), mind not what it used to be.

Might sound selfish but I don't want to be the last to go from my group of friends.

 

[kinley3]

Sharky, it seems to me that you're looking at the issue from a personal point of view. But in my opinion, you have to look at it in terms of humanity as a whole. To me, going naturally is the right thing to do. Otherwise, how will we feed the enormous and always growing population? Where will they live? Will everyone be able to find jobs?

Look, virii, and sickness in general, are nature's means of population control. Humans are animals, and animal populations need to be controlled. It's why we hunt deer, moose, ducks, quail, pheasant, whatever. It's for the common good that animal populations don't get out of hand. Same with humans.

To me, the idea is nice in theory. Absence of sickness and all that sounds good, but it's a very slippery slope. It will create far more problems than it will eliminate for the (cowardly?) few who wish to extend their lives to an unnatural length. It's essentially a way of "playing God" that so many talk about. And if you play God, you had better be prepared for the consequences of your actions. Humans, by nature, are prone to making mistakes, even if they have the best intentions in mind.

PS- Keep in mind that I'm not calling you cowardly. My point by that was simply that people could (and probably would) surely argue that using technology in such ways could be considered a coward's way to cheat death, so to speak.

 

[callumacrae]

"playing god" is mostly a load of rubbish - why is creating life wrong but destroying life perfectly acceptable?

~Callum

 

[misson]

Look, virii, and sickness in general, are nature's means of population control.

Parasitic organisms have another interesting function: pushing along evolution. Sexual reproduction, for example, may have evolved in response to parasitism. In artificial life experiments using Tierra, the appearance of parasites causes a sudden increase in the rate at which new species arose.

Of course, recognizing that parasites have a role in evolution doesn't mean we need to accept them in our personal lives. When it comes to population control, we are capable of doing that ourselves.

"playing god" is mostly a load of rubbish

Hear, hear. Humans have been playing god to various degrees since prehistory. Domestic species are products of human artifice, for example.

Not to say we shouldn't be extremely cautious in developing certain ideas. To be very sure of the consequences of our actions, the complex behavior of biological systems resulting from the expression of genes requires extensive study in contained environments.

On the topic, Radiolab had an interesting piece about genetic engineering in their "(So-Called) Life show.

 

[Sharky]

Sharky, it seems to me that you're looking at the issue from a personal point of view. But in my opinion, you have to look at it in terms of humanity as a whole. To me, going naturally is the right thing to do. Otherwise, how will we feed the enormous and always growing population? Where will they live? Will everyone be able to find jobs?

Look, virii, and sickness in general, are nature's means of population control. Humans are animals, and animal populations need to be controlled. It's why we hunt deer, moose, ducks, quail, pheasant, whatever. It's for the common good that animal populations don't get out of hand. Same with humans.

To me, the idea is nice in theory. Absence of sickness and all that sounds good, but it's a very slippery slope. It will create far more problems than it will eliminate for the (cowardly?) few who wish to extend their lives to an unnatural length. It's essentially a way of "playing God" that so many talk about. And if you play God, you had better be prepared for the consequences of your actions. Humans, by nature, are prone to making mistakes, even if they have the best intentions in mind.

PS- Keep in mind that I'm not calling you cowardly. My point by that was simply that people could (and probably would) surely argue that using technology in such ways could be considered a coward's way to cheat death, so to speak.

woah... you misunderstood...

I *don't* want to be the last...

"playing god" is mostly a load of rubbish - why is creating life wrong but destroying life perfectly acceptable?

~Callum

Creating life is wrong? There's this thing with birds and bees... Ask your parents.

 

[denzil]

"playing god" is mostly a load of rubbish - why is creating life wrong but destroying life perfectly acceptable?

~Callum

Good point. And who is to decide that modifying genes and the like is playing God? Perhaps we are just playing around in a playground that God gave us.

 

[kinley3]

"playing god" is mostly a load of rubbish - why is creating life wrong but destroying life perfectly acceptable?

~Callum

To your point, I look at it as being able to create a surplus of life that is unsustainable. Ironically, by creating and maintaining life for a longer period of time, much of the life on Earth will be destroyed. I mean, it is possible to have too much of a good thing; this is one of those instances to me.

Also, Sharky, sorry for the misunderstanding. I guess I missed a word somewhere in your post :/

 

[slowmassacrelabz24]

So, you really think all that is going to happen in 50 years? Try 5 million years buddy (if yer lucky). Of course, they could
always just do their "let's pretend it's true" stories, and then we can all talk about it like it makes sense. Seriously, can
you imagine a science fiction story where the planet in question could clone lifeforms before ever having even a single
space colony anywhere? First contact with aliens made by a clone? You'd immediately dismiss such a plotline as pure tripe
made by the worst of Hollywood hacks. Yet, people here believe it to be all true. Strange.

As for the ethics, only one type of being believes or will ever use (or pretend to use or have used) such technologies...
and let's just say it's only for the life "special effects". A "living" example for everyone to look at and learn. I think the
term is "exostential lifeforms".

Did anyone hear the rumour that Star Wars was made from the hacked up pieces of Battlestar Gallatica? Maybe that's
why they all have the same haircuts and the "costumes" are similar. In addition, all the spaceships seem to be of the
same "time period" and design. That's edit-tastic!

 

[misson]

So, you really think all that is going to happen in 50 years?

Less, for some tissues and organs. The estimate is 10 years[1] for bone, tendons and ligaments.

Seriously, can you imagine a science fiction story where the planet in question could clone lifeforms before ever having even a single space colony anywhere?

Yes, because it's not science fiction. We have cloned animals but don't have space colonies. Labs have also grown individual organs, though much of the technology may not be ready for prime time. It needs testing before it could be applied medically, and some of it currently is. Bladders are in phase II trials for another three years, then on to phase III, then they will become generally available. Lab grown skin has been available since 1996.

Some tissue replacement is more about quality of life than extending life. I think we can all get behind that. As for preserving life, it's one thing to say it's best to let "nature take it's course", it's another to watch a ten year old boy die from kidney failure.

Morally, if someone can prevent a death, do they have a duty to try (not a rhetorical question; I expect answers)? Ethically speaking, doctors have sworn the hippocratic oath, so for them the answer to a similar question is "yes". This extends to developing new treatments. Of course, this doesn't address whether patients should choose to undergo treatments, as that's rarely a question of morality when patients are making the choice for themselves.

1. Growing Body Parts in the Lab Becomes Reality
2. Replacement Human Muscles With Blood Vessels Grown In Rodents
3. Lab-grown cartilage fixes damaged knees
4. Can We Grow Organs Instead of Transplanting Them? (features a video from TEDMed, well worth watching)

 

[masshuu]

slowmassacrelabz24:

Actually i do think we will be growing organs made from our own DNA(cloning!!!) to replace organs. I also think we will have basic colonies on the moon and the asteroid belt(mining, orbiting space colonies take all of metal) and mars's moons. Infact we will need to have the ability to regrow organ parts, as humans are not designed for space and we may see certain organs fail rapidly in space.
Currently we can grow someones skin in a week and we already have humans(and monkeys) controlling robotic arms with only a neural interface(5 or 6 years ago)
Amusing we don't get in a world war over non renewable resources and waste 200 years recovering technologically, theres no reason why we can't get this in 50 years.
Heck, allot of predictions say we will have organ growing by 2025, so you need a new heart, call your doctor, wait a couple days, go in, get your new one.

Actually i think the first contact we will make with aliens will be robots built by them or engineered clones, as any organism that evolved on a planet is usually not built for space, along with the fact it may have a limited life span. A robot could repair its self very easily and an engineered clone could simply grow a new body and transfer its intelligence or its "Brain"(aliens will have different atomies than humans or life as we know, Don't dismiss this idea because you think of human physiology, also i might add there have been successful head transplants between monkies)

 

[kinley3]

Some tissue replacement is more about quality of life than extending life. I think we can all get behind that. As for preserving life, it's one thing to say it's best to let "nature take it's course", it's another to watch a ten year old boy die from kidney failure.

You're absolutely right. My issue is with extending life beyond the 80-90 year mark. Sure, people live past 90, but they are few and far between. I just can't accept the potential situation in which a 95-year old man's liver fails, so he's grown a new one. Then he has kidney failure, so they grown him a new one (or perhaps two). Then on to a new heart, or pancreas, or lungs. It's just an awfully slippery slope to me, and I really think we're getting ahead of ourselves.