Do you realize the irony replying to a comment that's basically saying "I don't think we'll go full cyborg soon, since growing new body parts in a lab will be cheaper." with the implication that it's not forward-looking?
Both of these ideas are currently in the basic research stage and far from becoming mainstream, so they are just looking in a different direction that is still "forward".
I agree that the lack of reasons for the economic differences is disappointing, though.
Personally, I believe we will use whatever solution makes sense in a given context. If you need a cosmetic replacement for you lost ear, you get appropriately shaped connective tissue colonized with fresh cells, so that it looks like the real thing. If you need something to restore your lost hearing, you get a cochlear implant.
I actually agree with you -- and personally I'd prefer having natural tissue replacement as a more ready and viable solution, I guess I really approached a response the wrong way. Rather than saying they weren't forward looking, I think I meant the vision espoused was too limited?
I do think we're closer to cybernetic/bionic options, though (as referenced in my original comment as an example).
Both of these ideas are currently in the basic research stage and far from becoming mainstream, so they are just looking in a different direction that is still "forward".
I agree that the lack of reasons for the economic differences is disappointing, though.
Personally, I believe we will use whatever solution makes sense in a given context. If you need a cosmetic replacement for you lost ear, you get appropriately shaped connective tissue colonized with fresh cells, so that it looks like the real thing. If you need something to restore your lost hearing, you get a cochlear implant.