Cybernetics

[SilentP]

As technology for prosthetics, electronics and biological integration improves, the possibility, however far in the future, of humans having the kind of cybernetics in sci-fi sometimes seems possible.

What are your thoughts on how much these advances could be integrated or used? Should they be used to the fullest extent? Or should they be only used conservatively?

Let's hear your thoughts

Sorting out the poll now

ETA: Poll up.

 

[Jadzia]

I have no objection to the technology. I don't feel it is even an ethical issue. People can adorn themselves with whatever technology they please, whether it's beneath the skin or upon it. Whether it's for life support or for leisure.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I'm in two minds so I picked two options. On one hand they should be used to replace lost limbs or organs but on the other hand I would like to see them utilised to better Humans and give them abilities they normally would not have but i'd not go too far over the top.

 

[Peter the Younger]

Personally, I'd just wait for the wetware equivalent, because I get the feeling that biological-cybernetic unions are going to be tricky and prone to complications, as they have been so far. But I have no objections to it in principle. Some augmentations - concealed deadly weapons, senses that invade another's privacy - would have to be verboten, despite the libertarian counterarguments ("If you outlaw laser eye beams, only outlaws will have laser eye beams!")

 

[sojourner]

Well, anything can be used as a weapon, so the hard part is drawing the line on what is illegal. Same could be said for "invading privacy". Should it be illegal for someone to have excellent hearing?

I like the general rule of making the act of something illegal, not the tools used to do it. Otherwise you end up on a slippery slope of stifling technological advance.

 

[trekkiedane]

Go Wild!

I want to be able to surf the net without having to find my machine (and charge it) first, I want to be able to 'breathe' under water, I want to be able to download knowledge directly into my mind, I want the ability to change my skin to suit any environment I might be in, I want to be able to jump over those 'hippos' that walk slowly in front of me, I want to store my emotions and memories and have perfect recall at my convenience, I want to get high whenever I feel like it -and to sober up in a few moments... I want it all!

 

[Peter the Younger]

Well, anything can be used as a weapon, so the hard part is drawing the line on what is illegal. Same could be said for "invading privacy". Should it be illegal for someone to have excellent hearing?

I like the general rule of making the act of something illegal, not the tools used to do it. Otherwise you end up on a slippery slope of stifling technological advance.

Sure, dealing with those hard questions is what makes the law interesting (seriously, the Supreme Court cases of the future are going to be fascinating for legal junkies.)

 

[CuttingEdge100]

I'd say if it was necessary, like replacing a faulty heart obviously. In some cases I could see justifying it to replace a sense of hearing (cochlear implant), an eye or something or a limb, but I'm not sure how far I would go with this.

 

[kes7]

As tempting as it would be to enhance oneself in that manner, I think this is the slippery slope toward becoming the Borg.

Seriously. If everyone starts perfecting themselves, what about the people who choose not to? Or can't afford to? Or, who will control access to this technology, and what power will that grant them over others? For the same reason I don't think we should be "designing babies" with our newfound genetic expertise, I don't think we should be "perfecting" ourselves with cybernetics. Replacing lost limbs, fine. Upgrading your brain with a faster processor? Not so much.

 

[FordSVT]

With the possible exceptions of language and fire, there isn't a technology that has ever existed in the history of human kind that has been evenly spread. In one or two hundreds years maybe 85% of the technological world will be plugged in to virtual environments, augmented with cybernetics, moving around in synthetic bodies, I have no idea. I'm pretty sure that there will be people who reject it, from Quakers to naturalists to religious peoples to primitive tribes still living in their natural state and people with a hundred other reasons.

Free commerce and our continued freedoms in a democratic society should prevent too few a number of people at the top from having exclusive access to these technologies, even if some of them have some of it first. If Apple creates a chip that lets you interface with computers so you can "Google in your mind" and access the Internet without an external device, do you think they'll want to sell it to 100 of the world's most powerful people or 100,000,000 Americans?

 

[iguana_tonante]

If Apple creates a chip that lets you interface with computers so you can "Google in your mind" and access the Internet without an external device, do you think they'll want to sell it to 100 of the world's most powerful people or 100,000,000 Americans?

Whichever would make more bucks for Apple.