Uh oh! I can just see the lawsuits waiting in the wings on this one. It seems that clinically creating human parts has really started to take off and the endeavor is to succeed on the “more complex” parts like the heart and arteries. Some people believe the heart is the “soul” of a person (and they would be wrong) but for the illiterate, let’s assume it is. If you receive a created heart to replace your own, are you now less human? How about a brain? What percentage of parts replacements would constitute a “non-being”? Let’s grapple with this one: if we proceed to duplicate everything of the human body, and we take a collection of these “grown” parts and make a being from scratch, should we call it Data?

I’m excited about the prospects of being able to replace defects and failures. These parts may affect our evolution as to stronger bodies built 12 ways (for the older folks) in the future. I am hoping for the science to implement/substitute our immune system with the ability to fight off all ailments and diseases, foreign and domestic. This future of science has great implications on healing humans and giving better quality of life (barring ommisions and denials from Obamacare regulations) and I, for one, am all for it. I do see lawsuits encumbering the pursuit of this technology where it will needlessly be put off well into the future. But the precedence case has already been decided when the defending counsel, Capt. Piccard, successfully confirmed Data has rights as a new species and sentient being. The difference with Napa man would be that he is of an existing species (human) and sentient.