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.