2. If we get more and more artificial (physically) as we get older, and we cost more, should we put cost limits on age?

The simple and most ethical answer would be- no. The people that would receive the most artificial body parts would probably be those that are most disadvantaged genetically. Therefore, we cannot blame these members of society for being given a set of faulty genes. Putting a cost limit would force these people to have no choice in terms of death. Furthermore, people that are disadvantaged genetically and financially would be “exterminated” if this cost limit is placed.


3. Replacing biomitochondria with more efficient nanochondria? Now we are redesigning cells - is that ethical or just the next step in evolution?

I was one of the people who reported positively nanomedicine and what it could offer in the next ten, twenty, or even hundred years. However, I believe that re-engineering a cell’s natural organelles into something more synthetic is unethical. This just makes a human into a “natural” robot. Plus, this could have dire side effects for evolution and growing by affecting DNA.

Each mitochondrion in a cell has a certain amount of genetic material within it. This DNA helps the organelle direct cell respiration and ATP synthesis. If we were to inject humans with synthetic mitochondria, or nanochondria, it could have dangerous effects on this delicate balance of respiration. Therefore, it is probably best that we draw the line here- prevent the redesign of cells.