Because our goal is aligned with our actual problem (survival of individual human beings), as opposed to the merely partially-aligned goal of "statistical survival up to reproduction age"? Natural evolution is an unaligned AI, in a sense: powerful, but not helpful.
Eventually humanity will defeat this problem, and we won't even need computational parity with natural evolution to do that. Most of that computation is wasted.
And the computation has to be done even in simulation. Just better to shortcut the suffering.
I think bioengineering is a good goal. I think cyborgs are a bad goal.
If our bodies were peak, we wouldn't need to use hundred(s) of hours of exercise per year to force muscular and cardiovascular improvements, it would just happen. Muscles wouldn't shrink away in an aggressive attempt to conserve calories, especially not regardless of BMI.
Then what would be the point of living if you had nothing to do but wait for updates? How boring.
Even a self-improving machine is spending time, not exercising but “designing a better version of itself”. Which is an “exercise”.
I hate to say this but I think your comment misunderstands the beauty of life and the challenge behind the struggle to improve. It is a blessed journey.
I personally think being fallable and not having full control of my destiny, while scary, is a feature and not a bug. It seems to make existence exciting.
> Which is an “exercise”.
You're arguing against a strawman. I'm not complaining about working for self-improvement, I'm complaining about how muscles shrink away so rapidly when not in use. Look at what happens when people are bedridden for a few weeks, that is not good design!
And I'm not saying people should automatically look like body builders, I'm saying the baseline should be a healthy level.
Interestingly, when you undergo a period of strength training, you see an increase in the number of myonuclei within your muscle fibres.
And this increase is permanent.
[1] https://foreverfitscience.com/exercise-science/is-muscle-mem...
I had a child, took a year off lifting, or basically doing anything but walking, I didn't lose much mass or strength and it hasn't taken me long to get back where I was, I'm pretty happy with the current design, maybe you should train more so you actually have some muscle in case you do need to spend a few weeks in bed?
Some people manage to do both at the same time.
Apart from walking, one issue with these other suggestions is that they are much less available than running and require special skills.
1. https://longevity.stanford.edu/lifestyle/2023/08/29/is-runni...
The main issue here is the combination of biological tissue/conditions and artificial ones without either giving out.
I think the 6-million-dollar man thing is a weird goal.
Better to regrow, implant, perhaps supplement.
Full-on replacement isn’t just a “when” but a “why” and a “how do you expect to do better than evolution”.
Titanium is cool! That doesn’t make it better than muscle.
Go for a run if you want a better heart