While I don't disagree with your level of skepticism necessarily, I'd like to take this moment to make a point --
this kind of negative sentiment seems so characteristic of HN lately toward anything new and difficult, in spite of the fact that this is a community generally aimed toward entrepreneurial, forward-looking, highly-technical types.
Instead of such a short stop "it would be expensive, so why bother, it won't happen for a long, long time" sort of sentiment, why does't the community make more pointed suggestions about flaws. Simply and vaguely saying "the economics look bad to me" generates only sentiment, and no real knowledge to be shared. I can be guilty of it, too, but usually because of emotional response and not a technical criticism. This sounds like a technical criticism with no reasoning.
On top of that, "era" is a really vague term. I mean, it might not be perfect, but try $300 on: https://www.engadget.com/2015/03/23/this-300-cybernetic-arm-...
I don't think it's as far and distant as you think.
I'll be honest, all this biomod stuff looks like LARP to me. Just look at the article, this person literally got a magnet installed so they could play-act at being in a lesser Neil Stevenson novel, while, as noted in these comments, the actual science is nowhere near delivering the advancements that were promised. It turns out not all problems can be solved with a little Javascript.
Maybe that makes me a cynic, fair enough, but all this valley hype is exhausting.
These scientifically conservative organizations are great for not letting terrible things happen to people, but not at all geared towards radical innovation. Viz the medical community just starting to realize that systemic outcome-tracking might be beneficial towards informing what procedures are more effective in the real world.
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).
My thoughts are:
The market for a useful cybernetic limb is extremely small, despite the amount of media attention this kind of thing gets. It would be limited to injured soldiers, the very small number of civilians that lose limbs, and the even smaller number of biohackers that would consider voluntarily replacing a limb. Each prosthetic limb would need to be custom built to size constraints and other characteristics of the amputated limb. Think about how much effort it took to create a good consumer experience for a smartphone where the market size is essentially the entire population on the planet and there are massive economies of scale.
The other factor is that even the limb prosthetics we have today require a significant amount of ongoing support to resize and adjust to the user. You can appreciate therefore that a highly sophisticated and customised synthetic limb would require very thorough ongoing follow up and maintenance for the lifetime of the user, and this incurs a significant cost.
Another factor is competing technology - growing organs extra-corporeally benefits from a much broader scope and therefore larger market, and possibly even easier engineering hurdles. Also, it is likely that there will be robots which you can ask to pick up your coffee cup etc long before a useful prosthetic limb. This isn't as good as having your own arm, but the engineering hurdles are much easier and the market for robotics is obviously massive.
I would suggest therefore that in the next 30 years, a useful prosthetic limb, with acceptable latency, strength and durability is probably not possible for less than several hundred thousand dollars initial cost, and perhaps that much again for life long maintenance. I also doubt that the potential market is big enough for someone to invest enough to turn it into a really good consumer product, including setting up supply chain and maintenance systems.
Personally, I'd love to have to have natural regrowth as a more viable option (though I also like the idea of cybernetic enhancement). For example, I have soft teeth and have had an issue maintaining their health without dental work my whole life. If anybody could ever make that such a non-issue as I might be able to have my dentin and enamel regrown, I'd be soooo happy.
Although
Also, no one picks locks unless they don't want it known they were there or don't want to pay for another lock. So ... just use your weapon.