The component parts they use are inherently problematic. You put enough metal in the body, it causes metal poisoning. This is a fundamental problem. You solve it by moving to other materials entirely. Other materials that have some hope of working tend to be more organic, and then we aren't talking cyborg-like outcomes anymore. We are talking some other paradigm.
I think you're focusing too hard on the chromesteel cyberpunk angle. A prosthetic made of silicone, plastic, and carbon fiber is still just as "cyborg".
And metal will still have its place. Most people are quite tolerant to titanium, and there's been some advances lately in hydrophobic coatings for implants that keep them from interacting with your blood. I think it's unlikely to be a primary component, though, because it's heavy and expensive and its primary advantage--strength--is useless if the body it's attached to gives out first.
Look, I am not arguing against creating prostheses for people who need them for some reason. If you are going to die without it or if your functionality is sufficiently impaired due to lack of a body part, there are certainly cases where it makes sense.
But I have difficulty imagining it will ever not be crazy to be willing to lop off a perfectly healthy arm to "upgrade" it. That was what I was reacting to. It isn't like I am decrying the evils of cochlear implants here.
That is exactly what I said in my first comment. And then a bunch of people piled on to have a cow about that statement. And the longer this discussion has gone on, the weirder it has gotten in terms of people trying to put words in my mouth and claim intent that isn't there.
You could just give it a rest yourself. It takes two to make for good discussion. Both people need to be engaging in good faith. It only takes one to undermine that process.
I used to read medical reports all day long as part of my job. This included surgical reports for when some implanted joint or such had failed, often for the umpteenth time.
I don't think we are "just getting started here."
Also, my understanding is that Edgar Caycee, a psychic, was the first person to suggest that a nail or screw be used to hold a bone in place so it could mend when it was failing to do so. I find it ironic that this has been so widely embraced by conventional medicine. It was suggested by a guy in a trance and we ran with it and now when you try to point out that it leads to metal poisoning, failures, infections, well, I'm somehow the one not being scientific enough or something.
Wait, are you suggesting that pinning broken bones is a bad idea?
Eight months ago I broke my ankle in four places. Today, I can walk with only a minor limp because a surgeon stuck the shattered fragments back together with a load of titanium. Maybe there's a risk of metal poisoning in my future, but I think we can all agree that it's better than a near-certainty of never walking unassisted again.
So, I don't see it.