A reality where people can add things to their bodies like that frightens me. 

As an empath/intuitive, I can sometimes sense what's going on in the other person (and more). I know bodies are far more than biological tissue -- some have said we live in an electric universe but I'm sure there's more. I believe humans perceive just a small fraction of reality through their senses although many could naturally perceive far more just through the process of living in a very "embodied", authentic way (closer to one soul's purpose, if you could believe in such things).

Any sense modification/perceiving body technologies would merely serve to increase this "embodiment gap" that humans have.

From working with myself and other people, not being fully IN one's body psychologically/energetically is a result of trauma and just living in this society. This disconnection causes a lot set of other problems. E.g. If you had one shorter leg than another, you'd also have tension problems in other parts of your body due to everything being connected. Enhancing , altering or fixing a symptom will only create imbalance somewhere else. It's a very holistic way of seeing things. 

**AI and doctors**: It is impossible for AI or human doctors to be perfect because we don't know *everything* about the human body -- why everything works the way it does or why it might break down in some ways. AI might examine biological information and come to conclusions quicker but collating medical info from a patient, treating patients and being a doctor is far more than that. It would take a long time for AI to be as good as a human doctor and would probably add bureaucracy and further cost to the system. In a way, decisions are already made according to predefined "best practice" protocols (which AI might be programmed with) and that has caused its own set of issues. I like doctors being able to microcontrol surgical instruments but many doctors and patients still have a problem with remotely controlling this machinery let alone machinery working on its own.

Also, if you cannot trust robots and AI with ethical decisions (usually very simple practical choices which are morally complex) -- surely your intuition is telling you something? It would be impossible to ensure all AI is programmed with Isaac Asimov's robotic laws for example.

**Wealth**: Yeah it's going to be interesting to see how Steem develops in this way. It would be interesting to see the bell curve of where/how much Steem is distributed among contributers/curators and through donations. What do users who do nothing get, for example? If this was a 100% Steem world, those who couldn't contribute would have to rely on donations.

I'm new the idea of voluntary welfare. UBI appears to resolve a lot of issues and free up people to contribute and create in whatever way they're gifted to. 

I agree that wealth distribution systems should be under decentralized, impartial, non corrupt, non fascist, human control.  I like the sound of UBI and voluntary welfare working together!

Interesting conversation :)

Hi Guillaume, thanks for your reply and the links! Those were some pretty long articles. On the whole, even if I like Dan's sentiments, I have a different opinion.

I wrote a long response so put it in a post instead:
https://steemit.com/universal-income/@nadinemenezes/comment-dan-larimer-s-basic-income-vs-universal-basic-income-reply-to-teamsteem