This reminds me of the old discussions about realism in pen&paper RPGs.
It can work as a system incorporated into RPGs. There is a James Bond RPG that uses a damage system with about five stages to it, from uninjured, through moderate wounds, to outright killed. Depending on the weapon used, you may take one additional level of damage (say, by being hit with a rock), to five (rocket to the head). Your general effectivenes drops as your damage accrues, and the likelihood of scarring increases, making you a less effective spy in later missions.
Of course, there are advantages to paper-based gaming; the GM may alter the game accordingly to help players saddled with too many problems to be effective. If a computer game could effectively substitute for a human GM, then I might be more easily persuaded to try a game with such a realistic damage system.
When you hit forty, your tits will be hard as rocks. Hers are.
Oddly enough, I'm forty and after reading your comment I'm as hard as a rock.
I've also been called a boob before, but I never thought they were being literal.
I agree that it should be preserved, but there is room for discussion on how to preserve them.
Consider the case of Plymouth Rock. Taught in American schools as where the Pilgrims first set foot in the New World, it's really a shadow of its former self. Not only is it much smaller than it was, due to a few hundred years of people chipping off souvenirs, but it's even been dragged across town, so it's not in its original location!
Worse still, Plymouth isn't even where the Pilgrims first landed. They landed in Provincetown, and did some exploring along Cape Cod before settling in Plymouth.
How will the future see the significance of Apollo 11? Is only the base of the lander significant? Will it end up in the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum? Or will the lunar soil and footprints bee seen as significant as well?
In every non-trivial program there is at least one bug.