Can man be replaced by machine?

The idea that man, or anything similar and ungodly can be immortal is not a new one. It has been around for hundreds of years in myths and stories. But now, it does not seem that far off, with the biological and mechanical replacements for body parts, that people are already becoming part machine. But should this happen? To what extent? How much can you replace before we are not really ourselves anymore? Will we want the next generation, newly improved with mechanical parts, to live forever?
To answer most of these questions would include the consideration of many ethics. However, if one had all their arms and legs replace with mechanical ones, another person’s liver replaced their own, even their heart failed and they were given a new one. With all of these body parts replaced, with such a small percentage of the body they were born with still with them, sustaining life, are they really themselves? Is there a reason that many animals, after they reproduce, die off so that they can let the next generation live? Some think so, that there are reasons why even the ‘immortal’ in myths can die of a broken heart, that there is an evolutionary reason that we live long enough to see our children prosper, and then it is their turn to take care of us as we age, and our bodies fail, in the untampered cycle of life.
To change this way of life would be very dangerous. Where would these people live? How would they be fed? How will the Earth sustain life for all of these people? Granted yes, if scientists could live forever, cancer, heart disease, AIDS, all of these diseases and causes of mortality could be abolished by new discoveries. But with a planet of only a certain amount of resources, and only that space to sustain life as we know it or can conceive it; to open up the possibility of eternal life, or as close as we can get to it, would be to open Pandora’s box in the worst way, to let out all the evils of humanity all over again on the unsuspecting new generations to come.

Reproducible vs. Unique

There is a debate about modernist and post-modernist art; that because the art may be physically reproducible, then why is it so valuable? The answer is, that the art is not reproducible, and for several reasons. Most of what drive the art is the ideas behind it and the process in which the artist goes through to create it. For example, Jackson Pollock’s abstract works. They are about the paint itself, and how he created this pattern that seems random to the untrained eye. He created these paintings a certain way, almost dancing around the canvas, to make the pattern that some viewers see as chaos.
There is a similar story for post-Modernist and founder of Dadaism, Marcel Duchamp. He reason that his “Golden Fountain” (1917, a bronze-covered urinal) is art is “because I chose it”. This implies that anything can be art, from the epitome of reproducible, a mass-produced object like the “Bottle Rack”(1914). If there is reasoning behind how the artist chose it, or the process that they altered or created it, then it is art that cannot be reproduced. Because to make another identical “Bottle Rack” and call it art would make it a reproducible commodity to buy and sell to people in mass, which was what Duchamp was trying to escape when he created his works.