Conceptually? I'm all for it. Why wouldn't I be.
In practice, we live in a capitalist society and I don't want an arm that makes me watch an advertisement before I open a bag of chips.
Not against it on principle, but there's no way I'd get it knowing about the way the corporations that have the resources to make it happen operate.
Wearable > implantation
Just a security concern. Augmenting is great but we don't want the augmentations to become a liability. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, if we invent a robotic arm replacement for someone who's lost one, the security concerns are generally lower than the quality of life improvement of having a functioning arm 99% of the time, and there's an argument for the potential ability for rapid detachment in case of emergency, but once we get into subdermal and brain implants, we're in a territory where these things can't be easily removed in case of emergency, and the risks get immense.
This sparks joy: Augmentation to help people become the selves that they would truly like to be.
This does not: Some kind of transhuman singularity dystopia where we have replaced ourselves not out of a soul-driven yearning for our true self, but in service of a cold, quantitative utilitarian calculus that says we must shed our skin because it is logically inferior.
I think it'll be cool in like, 50 years once the technology is there. Right now all it does is kill monkeys.
I am in favour of transhumanism, but I would only want a neural implant if it's fully open source and not connected to the cloud. It also must not break the skin, because I don't want infections, especially near my brain.
Cool for people with disabilities or medical needs. But otherwise I'm not a fan of purely cosmetic/cyberpunk/silicon valley style augmentation.
