Dominic Burchnall said:
ultrachicken said:
There are other factors that come into play, like how the limbs are powered, how long they last, how expensive they are, and how prone they are to breaking due to, say, water damage.
Another problem is, as the rest of your body degraded through age, would your upgraded bionics be too much for your body to bear? Say you got upraded arms and legs, would your torso still be able to support the extra wieght and necessary mechanical implants to keep them in place? Also what about if you became senile? It's difficult enough to restrain a flailing pensioner when the main concern is not accidently hurting them, but what if the main concern was that they could knock you through a wall whilst doing so? Or quite literally forgot your own strengh, and broke your own jaw trying to swat a fly away?
You could say the same thing about someone going senile who still drives. Probably more dangerous honestly in that regard.
We already deal with these issues daily right now actually, so I think the solution would be the same - take them away. If you take the car keys away from gramps because he has alzheimers, then you could probably take the bionics away too... or even better, maybe just install a "limiter" on them like they do on cars... (why not??)
You said in your original post that you would want bionic limbs because they would retain strength and performance over the years. Wouldn't a limiter rather nullify this? Of the two options you suggested, simply taking a persons limbs away carries huge ethical questions, and if you went for the better option of a limiter, how would it be implemented? Who would control it? A family member or a carer, who would see you on a regular basis and allow you a manageable amonut of power for your condition that day? Or would you need to specifically visit a bionic specialist for a "re-tune", preventing possible abuse issues but leaving you weak on the better days?
I'd say the obvious answer to all these questions is that we don't have the ethical solutions for a situation that hasn't presented itself yet. Realistically it wasn't until recently when people could start cloning animals/other people and we still don't have a great consensus on what is considered ethical behavior (and often even things that are widely frowned upon still happen
anyway, so consensus doesn't really mean much does it?)
Really, all we're talking about is a framework of governance around the possibility of having superior physical attributes. Right now, we don't have any governance around this at all with the exception of illegal steroids - but even that gets flouted regularly by people who can afford it (Wasn't Sylvester Stalone arrested with a suitcase full of human growth hormone on an overseas trip? Legally prescribed I believe... but the prescription of obviously dubious merit).
Anyway, it's easy enough to play the what-if game, but ultimately let's say everything is made illegal - some people will still do it. I suppose you can decide for yourself if you'd be one of those people or not.
