Originally posted by DeepThought
When applied to humans there is an immense amount of scope for abuse. The army could have werewolves as soldiers...
Who would still get their asses handed to them by drones and robots.
When meat hits the metal, the metal always wins.
It's an undeniably powerful technology, and as such it is undoubtedly
Just as all powerful technology is.
However unless you can demonstrate that it cannot be used responsibly
then that's an argument for carefully controlling the use of technology
rather than not using it at all.
For example, Take human lungs.
Lets say that you have developed some degenerative lung disease, cancer
for example, and that you therefore need new lungs.
Fortunately the technology exists to build you a new pair of lungs using
3D printing and your own stem cells (could be a reality in the next 1~2 decades).
However we know from studying nature and our own engineering knowledge that
there are much better lung designs than the ones we use.
Designs that could well be easier to print, are more robust and reliable, as well as
having improved performance.
These improved lungs are either no harder to make, and possibly easier to make than
your old flawed lungs.
Assuming that the technology is proven safe at this point.
Why would you choose to have exact copies of your old inferior lungs as opposed to
improved ones that work better and last longer but which cost exactly the same or less?
And even if you don't personally want it...
How would you justify a law banning it?