We're arguing cyberware vs nanoware. if you're not using nano-tech, it likely doesn't matter, given how hard mono-edges are to make. Steels durability is less than the carbon nanotubes I'm using to modify the "wooden" sword, so the base material actually has the mobility advantage of being lighter and easier to wield.
The part where Obsidian fractures as it cuts through anything more durable than it doesn't apply to weaving carbon nanotubes through a bokken and giving it a mono-edge. Bad comparison. All you have right is that a mono-edge doesn't cut through molecular bonds and that glass fractures rather easily.
Again, if you can put nanotubes into wood you can put them into metal. They make things more durable. If the base is more durable to begin with the results are better. There is no situation where a organic object augmented with nanoware would be better than a machine augment made with the same level of technology. You cannot claim that your position gets to weave nanotubes through organic matter but for some magic reason they cannot be woven through pure metal, and more easily, and for better results. You can continue to give examples and ill just continue to point out that any technique you imagine can be better applied to cyberware. No matter how many times we do that dance the results are not going to change. Thats what ive been saying from the start, and claiming that i cant use nanoengineering techniques to make cyberware is ridiculous... since thats my whole point. Any application of nanotech to biology will pale in comparison to any similar application of nanotech to cyberware. I've all but spelled that out in every post I've made on this subject.
The idea of 'augmentation through nanotech strengthening organic systems is superior to augmentation through the wholesale removal and replacement of organic systems with technological ones' is the subject of this kerfuffle. Its what was said and what i originally replied to.
My point in short, is that any augmentation that you can apply though nanoware to the human body can easily be superseded by applying those same engineering techniques to a actual cyberware augmentation, chopping the bit off, and bolting the new one in place. In addition, that doing it this way is much simpler, safer and cheap, producing results that are not just better, but more robust and reliable, as well as being easier to repair and replace.
Imagine if you will; nanotubes woven through materials increase durability. The way this would be done in a industrial setting is probably going to be similar to asbestos and fiberglass techniques (since they are all based on the same idea of impregnating a material with microscopic structures to improve durability), which amounts to a specialized spray nozzle that coats materials with it during production (such as splaying it into still molten metal before its allowed to fully cool, or around a form to create a pure nanotube structure). Do you truly believe that building billions of microscopic machines to weave nanotubes through your skin, muscle and bones without killing you in the most horrific way is going to be
simpler, cheaper or safer than building a robotic arm out of nanotube-ed materials in a factory and bolting it to your body with routine amputation or organ removal (both things we have
alot of practice with) and a few bone screws? Do you believe that the
result of a nanowared organic arm will be better than a machine built with the primary design directive of 'being better than a human arm in every way' using the same level of tech, nanotech and engineering? Do you think it would be stronger? Faster? More durable? What if it breaks? The cyberware can be detached and a new one put in the same place even more easily than the original was put there. Most likely youd just unscrew the arm and put a new one in the same socket, but even if you have to replace the whole socket doing so will be easier than the surgery to put the socket there to begin with. With the nanoware arm? Hell, youd have to scrub out all those broken nanotubes without destroying everything they are attached to, or the arm its self and fix all the genetic damage caused by those jagged spars of carbon piercing cell nuclei, or just set the broken bone and put
more nanotubes to build a internal cast until it heals? Hell that sounds like a mess, its not impossible to be sure, but again... cost, simplicity, safety.
Results.
So between the two? Cyberware wins out because anything nanotech can do to a person, it can do better to a machine.
