While you probably have the right idea, about the possibility of there being downsides to something like this, I think you’re way off base with the detail you’v

While you probably have the right idea, about the possibility of there being downsides to something like this, I think you’re way off base with the detail you’ve opted to focus on. Physiologically speaking, maybe the excess biochemical signaling could lead to fatigued pathways, chemical exhaust toxicity, cell death... but I think that could be overcome with a control plane that permits deactivation, so that you only use it selectively, and that passes the buck, leaving the burden of responsibility with the patient. In practical use, I think subtle social consequences are a bigger accident waiting to happen, worth more attention than the subsequent, resulting inner well being (or lack thereof) of the post-op recipient. Little things like having the ability to observe otherwise silent flatulence, notice residual keyboard heat, see through clothing, and perhaps even walls, watching dinner cook, that sort of thing would change the sense of self, sure. If it’s truly harmless, you’ll see an alarming level of adoption. But it’s the arms race of being left behind, when seemingly the rest of the world gets something like this, and you can’t jump on the bandwagon, leading to an absurd amount of dangerous elective procedures that would likely become the bigger evil. Suddenly ordinary just isn’t good enough, so what happens next?