Nano Body Building

Roland Piquepaille writes "In this article from Backbone Magazine, Douglas Mulhall, author of 'Our Molecular Future' tells us about the future of nanomedicine. He thinks that medical diagnosis will be the first successful steps, involving nanorobots which will raise alerts when they detect pre-cancerous cells. And twenty years from now, researchers envision that nanomedicine will be a trillion dollar industry. Around 2025, you'll pay $1,000 a year for a nanopill that will extend your life by suppressing heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases. Other scientists say that nanotechnology will be used to build synthetic bone and tissue, an opinion shared by Scientific American, which warns that growing replacement organs is still at least another 10 to 20 years in front of us. More details and references are available in this overview focused on how nanomedicine is going to totally take over healthcare in the 21st century. [Additional note: Slashdot described Mulhall's Law of Disassembly last February.]"

Comments

Nano Body Building?

[Anonymous Coward]

2 inch arnold shwarzeneger is here to PUMP, YOU UP.

yes but will it...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. enlarge my penis?

Re:yes but will it...

[Anonymous Coward]

no, but it can make your hand smaller.

Re:yes but will it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that is what I call *NANO* body building...

Re:yes but will it...

[Amorpheus_MMS]

These actually might, so the spam we get today could be valid offers in the future. If we still haven't dealt with it by then, that is...

Re:yes but will it...

[Dulimano]

This was very funny indeed. There was another variation on this theme on Slashdot once. I couldn't find the link, but it went on like this:

One funny slashdotter:

"REAL VAGINAL SHRINKING CREAM!

Men! Do your wives complain that your manhood just doesn't measure up? Slip
your woman some VSC and in two to three weeks your woman will be wondering
what she was complaining about!

SIZE DOES MATTER!"

One even funnier slashdotter:

"It's like buying penis enlargements for all you friends and family."

cool

[Anonymous Coward]

first nano post

Wow!

[Bishop, Martin]

Around 2025, you'll pay $1,000 a year for a nanopill that will extend your life by suppressing heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases.

And then they can mix it with viagra and make a pill that increases your life, AND your penis! Twice the spam too!

Re:Wow!

[Short Circuit]

Can you imagine the public fear of nanotechnology if they're bombarded with insensitive advertisements about it?

Even worse if they start advertising it before it's available...then people will begin to think nanotech is all a scam.

Gotta love the 21th Century

[Graftweed]

Great, another thing to make us even more lazy and careless.

Exercise and good diets? Nah mate, just pop in one of those new pills and you're sorted.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[InternationalCow]

Actually, there's no formal proof that watching what you eat will *extend* your life span. Not paying any attention to it MAY shorten it however. Same goes for exercise. No, this pill or whatever form it takes is definitely the way to go. What I do foresee, however, is Westerners becoming some kind of Struldbrug club (see Larry Niven for what the hell that is) with worn out peripheral nervous systems. And your central nervous system, with its pattern of connections being your personality, will not be that easy to maintain. You could end up more demented than Ronald Reagan but still looking like J Lo (or whatever you prefer).

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Bl33d4merican]

"21th"...maybe we should improve our schools before we improve everything else. What good will it do us to live hundreds of years if we still have children who think "21th" is a word? Perhaps nanotechnology can improve education as well. (No, I don't mean reusable paper, better databases, or e-learning, as suggested by Mulhall...I mean a real improvements in the learning process.) I do, however, recommend Our Molecular Future, the book mentioned in the article. While it is a bit presumptuous, it's a rather fascinating read.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Jerf]

Exercise and good diets? Nah mate, just pop in one of those new pills and you're sorted.

Yes, but who cares? The reason we have to exercise and diet is that we are adapted for non-civilized times. On the evolutionary scale civilization is young, young, young.

Maintaining our current adaptations, and using technology to correctly and dynamically adjust our bodies to our current situations sounds optimal to me. (We want to maintain our current adaptations as a "just in case" mechanism; we probably shouldn't evolve our "natural" bodies to excessively depend on civilization.)

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a lower or higher activity level, any more then it's intrinsically wrong that you can't run 60 mph for an hour. If the health effects of inactivity are erased, that's just fine.

Don't confuse effect with cause. Exercise is necessary for specific reasons. If the reasons are removed, then exercise is no longer necessary.

Of course, this ignore something else: If you could give me a pill and give me a toned body right now, the odds are much greater that I'd engage in much more exercise then I do now, even if it weren't strictly necessary. The hump is what stops me; I've tried several times to start an exercise program, but I've got so far to go before it's really fun and not boring that I never make it over that hump. I mean, I feel all bad about it and stuff, but that doesn't help much.

(Suggestions on how to make it fun aren't necessary, although perhaps they'll help others; I've thought of several but they all involve not living in an apartment.)

Also, fundamentally, adequate diets will always be necessary; you will always have certain requirements and it'll be a long time before we have elemental transmutation built into our bodies ;-) But if I could stick a more efficient processing plant in you that ran off of sugar and a few trace elements, recycling everything else, would you still be bitching about how bad my diet of pure sugar is? Diet is relative, and if we adjust our bodies to match our diet, so much the better for us!

You have been brainwashed into assuming that exercise and diet are some sort of Universal Constant, but they aren't. Study animal nutrition for real-life examples that exist today. You want to kill your cat? Try feeding it Vegan-style. I've talked to a vet who has seen this; it's quite sad.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Jeff DeMaagd]

At first, I wondered what it would do with the gene pool if it allowed people with poorer and poorer gene structures to stay alive longer and reproduce more.

As it is, it isn't about survival of the genetically fittest anymore.

But then, if we find damaged gene lines, I suppose that they could be fixed with some forms of gene replacement therapy, replaced with known good genes. That's still scary though if stuff like this runs amok.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[leon.gandalf]

Or just a way to do more..... Get away with more activity because that nanites will repair your muscle...

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Wetware]

There is no reason that the same bots that are searching out and destroying harmful cells cannot also be repairing failing cells that you want to maintain. Your nervous system can be kept fully functioning, skin can look great, no mobility issues, etc. I just wonder what happens when the memory gets full.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could give me a pill and give me a toned body right now, the odds are much greater that I'd engage in much more exercise then I do now, even if it weren't strictly necessary. The hump is what stops me; I've tried several times to start an exercise program, but I've got so far to go before it's really fun and not boring that I never make it over that hump. I mean, I feel all bad about it and stuff, but that doesn't help much.

How the hell do you figure that? You think there is only one hump? If you don't have the mental wherewithall to get over the first hump your artificially enhanced ass isn't going to be exercising one second more than you are now. Getting over the barrier is the fun of it, if you can't find enjoyment in that challenge than no amount of nanotech is going to make any exercise good for you, even if you are vaulting parking lots.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[TheRagingTowel]

You underestimate the other biological and psychological effects of doing sports - like better metabolism, which I don't think a nanopill can improve systematicly, and just the good feeling of doing sports, which in turn have biochemical reasons. You want to feel better without the sports? Well I guess you'll find a pill for this too...

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I can tell you, exercise is a lot more fun when you're in good shape then when you aren't.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Jerf]

You miss the point completely. The point is that if a pill could indeed do those things, then who cares? Arguing "well what if the pill can't do those things?", while a potentially interesting and fruitful discussion on its own, does nothing to answer my post, which assumes that a pill can do those things from the get-go.

When a post has the form "If A, then B", it accomplishes nothing to argue "What if not A?"; this is why a logical implication is considered true automatically if the antecedent is false. If not A, then logically, my post is sound anyhow!

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Cthefuture]

Of course, this ignore something else: If you could give me a pill and give me a toned body right now, the odds are much greater that I'd engage in much more exercise then I do now, even if it weren't strictly necessary. The hump is what stops me; I've tried several times to start an exercise program, but I've got so far to go before it's really fun and not boring that I never make it over that hump. I mean, I feel all bad about it and stuff, but that doesn't help much.

I doubt you would really feel any different about exercising. Oh, you might at first, but then you'd revert. It's all mental and if you don't have the will now, you won't when you are in shape.

I'm in damn fine shape and I sometimes struggle to keep up the activity. It does not get any easier no matter what shape you are in. Again, it's all in your mind. A change of attitude is the only thing that will make a difference and that is one of the toughest things anyone can do.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you don't have the willpower to stick to it now, I guarantee you aren't going to be increasing the amount of exercise that you're doing no matter what this pill does.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[m_evanchik]

Kim Robinson deals with issue in his "Mars" trilogy. The solution he envisages is sort of like a mental housecleaning, and the description of it working sounds like a psychedlic drug episode.

I'm more than willing to risk the eventual craziness to live longer.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[mog007]

So the people that die from Kitosis from the Atkin's diet arn't really dying, and the high cholesterol from fast foods doesn't clog arteries?

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Knetzar]

It does not get any easier no matter what shape you are in.

As someone who's be slowly getting in better shape over the last few years, I have to disagree with you. Certain activities that used to be a chore for me became a lot more fun. Now I do many activites (biking for example) for the sake of the activity instead of just to get in shape. Now it might be a change of attitute that did it, or I might revert in a few years...but for now, I think all it took was a few months of concentrated effort to get me started...which makes me wonder if that effort was the attitude change...okay, so now I'm confused...I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Afty0r]

If you could give me a pill and give me a toned body right now, the odds are much greater that I'd engage in much more exercise then I do now, even if it weren't strictly necessary. The hump is what stops me; I've tried several times to start an exercise program, but I've got so far to go before it's really fun and not boring that I never make it over that hump.

I'm six foot four (just under 2 metres tall), almost perfect body mass ratio, I have had at least semi regular exercise all my life, a reasonable diet and I have to tell you that there are very few forms of exercise that are "really fun and not boring" - and those that are, you need at least ONE other person to engage in :)

I hope you don't read this post as condescending as what I'm about to say may sound blunt - but there is NO SUCH THING as a hump - exercise is HARD WORK, and if it doesn't feel like hard work then you're not exercising well.

Go out, start again - this time when you think you're hitting the hump, remember that it's just the same as it has been for the past few days/weeks/months and you've just got to work through it mentally. DO NOT tell yourself "it gets better on the other side" or some such crap - it's always hard work - the exercise is not the reward, the increased confidence, fitness and feeling of self-worth is the reward, and you will ONLY get that if it FEELS like hard work.

Get out there are do it - you're capable of it, and it's up to you to prove it.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[shadowkoder]

Note: This is a suggestion on how to make it fun.

I have found rock climbing to be a very rewarding form of exercise physically and mentally. Puny little undergrad becomes slightly stronger, able to do some cool moves on the wall undergrad. If a gym is relatively close to you, I say check it out. Generally, you start out sucking, and then have a time period where it seems your skills sky rocket. After that comes the plateau. I'm just now moving off that initial skill plateau, so I cant comment past that.

Regardless, I find doing something besides "hitting the gym" (for non-running excersices at least). But that's my $0.02.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[dfghjk]

There's certainly plenty of evidence that diet and exercise, when chosen poorly, can contribute to shortening your life though. Curious that you see an imaginary pill as the way to go when a good diet and exercise is so clearly beneficial (and is here now).

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[thrillseeker]

I just wonder what happens when the memory gets full.

I forget.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[rebeka thomas]

Study animal nutrition for real-life examples that exist today. You want to kill your cat? Try feeding it Vegan-style. I've talked to a vet who has seen this; it's quite sad.

Yes. No better proof that this current fad "Low Carb" diet is about the unhealthiest thing a human can do to their body.

It's going to be sad on one level, but I'll still be laughing, when in 5 years perfectly thin and healthy looking low-carb dieters keel over from heart attacks when their withered heart muscle finally gives out from the stress it's under.

Schadenfreude indeed.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, vegan is different than low-carb. I'm not even sure of the parent's point though...you don't die from a vegan diet unless (like all diets & by that I mean eating habits, not the latest fad) you don't eat properly!

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[LiquidCoooled]

Some bastard hacker already thought of that, and has designed an exploit for the brain-buffer overflow probl.....

******ZZZZZZRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTT********

Friends, Family, Contacts, Mailing Lists, here me when I say herbal viagra is good for you - and you have been preselected to win a prize

btw, my pin number is 1234

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Zerth]

> You could end up more demented than Ronald
> Reagan but still looking like J Lo (or whatever
> you prefer).

So, basically, retirement homes will be the whorehouses of the future?

The distant future: "Dude, that is the chick you're banging? She doesn't even look legal! How old is she?"
'Actually, like 130, but I try not to think about it.'
"Ewww.... at least I've got somebody in the same century as me."
'Yah, but you spend half your check on buying her crap. Mine, I just leave at the old folks home during the day with a sock full of quarters for bingo.'

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Cheetahfeathers]

gym = human hamster wheel = no fun = fuck no.
hiking/biking/rock climbing = fun = yeah!
no way to get to hills where I can hike/bike/climb rocks = d'oh

I hate when people suggest gyms. :)

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is that like a cat was never designed to eat vegan and survive, humans were never designed to eat Atkins crap and live. In time, both will lead to an early death.

Many animals of course can survive for a time out of their normal diet. Vegetarian cats can keep going for a few years. Certainly not conducive to long life.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Shajenko42]

Firstly: Who says that the only capability these nanos will have is to increase the size of your muscles? They could also improve your cardiovascular and respiratory systems (scrape out all the crap in our arteries and lungs, for instance). Also, the heart is essentially a big muscle, so would even be affected with your example.

Secondly: You say that increased discipline is an effect of regular exercise. I think you have that backwards: people who exercise regularly do so because they already have discipline. People without discipline won't exercise regularly.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[aussie_a]

oh shit. That's the funniest thing I've ever read here.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Cro Magnon]

Physical shape DOES make a difference. 20 years ago, I didn't even think about taking long walks; I just did it. Then I got a desk job, a car, and 80 more pounds. Now I have to talk myself into walks that I would have laughed at in the old days.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Anonymous Coward]

When a post has the form "If A, then B", it accomplishes nothing to argue "What if not A?"

Not aty all. If you argue "If A, then B" and I show that A is incredibly unlikely, then your post is pointless. So it may be logically sound, but it should be ignored.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Dave_M_26]

humans were never designed to eat Atkins crap and live

Gotta love those ACs who talk out of their arses.

You have no idea what humans were designed to eat. Try thinking for a second about what humans ate in the 2 million years prior to the invention of agriculture 20,000 years ago. Guess what, it wasn't a Big Mac with fries and a coke.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[DuckDodgers]

"I've tried several times to start an exercise program, but I've got so far to go before it's really fun."

I think you missed his point entirely.

When I had a 70 pound bench maximum press, I had no enthusiasm for working out because even a 20 pound increase in my maximum would still leave me with an overall poor level of strength.

Now I have a 200 pound bench press, and my workouts are much more demanding across the board. Yet I positively love working out now, because my strength is good and I'm excited about making it even better.

I think that's what the guy is talking about. It's hard to get excited about running a 12 minute mile, even if it is the fastest you've ever been, because it's still really slow. If you run eight minute miles and you're trying for six minute miles, you are going from moderately fast to very fast, and chances are good that you'll be very excited.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[mdielmann]

There has been speculation for over a century that if adults limit their caloric intake to 60% of recommended, that your lifespan will be approximately double the average. There are currently studies being done with rats that have this effect. Already, scientific research has identified a compound nicknamed AGE that is created when sugars are combusted while having too much sugar present. It causes cell death when the quantities get too high, and leads to a reasonable explanation for the restricted-calorie idea. Hopefully, someday, we will see studies to verify this effect in humans.

On a side note, whether eating in a less-than-optimal manner reduces my lifespan, or eating in an optimal manner increases my lifespan is entirely semantics. The end result is, if I eat one way, I'll live 10 years (or whatever) less than if I eat another. And "not paying attention to it" can be sufficiently achieved by eating a typical American diet.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[func]

Dude, have some fun! I can hardly walk today I had so much exercise this weekend, and what little fat there is on my abs is noticeably smaller than it was on Friday. Despite drinking most of a liter of tequila with a little help on Friday night!

Find something that's fun, and it won't be exercise; it'll be entertainment. I kitesurfed all weekend out in frigid Canadian waters, and I had a blast! Launching 20 foot high jumps, crashing hard, crashing my kite, swimming after it, chasing sailboats, rescuing complete strangers.

For all you geeks out there, check out kiting - it's great for working on physics and whatnot. You go really, really fast, then pull the trigger and jump, converting all that speed directly into height - and then eventually you come down again. Maybe right side up, maybe not. Too much fun! Pulled off a smooth backflip yesterday. It's like having rocket boots - you can turn off gravity, temporarily, but whenever you want. Some guy hit 45 mph on the water a few weeks ago at the speed trials in France - that's 5 mph faster than that silly Camaro that was on Slashdot a few weeks ago, and that's with pretty minimal equipment.

So yeah, exercise can be fun. And don't give me any crap about being too old or fat - you won't be for for long; I saw a 69 year old guy down in Mexico ripping great big deadmans, 15 feet in the air. And he's not the only old guy doing it; they had a 60 year old demonstrating back loops in one of the better instructional videos.

Get out there and enjoy life - you're gonna be dead soon enough, might as well have some fun while you still can!

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[Falcula]

You can spend all your time trying to extend your life by not living it to your fullest and still get hit by a truck. Eat good food, work out and have fun, because you never know what happens tomorrow anyway.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[mdielmann]

It's amusing that people put such an emphasis on food. "I'll happily pay $1k a year for a pill (when it comes out) for much of the same benefits that I can have today, simply by changing my lifestyle." Somehow living life to it's fullest requires heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. And the old standby: we don't know what'll happen tomorrow. Do you have a home? A truck could go off the road and drive right through it any time. House insurance? Almost never gets used. Savings? Why save when you could be dead tomorrow? We all live our lives by the odds, more or less. There's a high enough (to me) chance I or my wife will die before our children are self-sufficient, so we have life insurance. I have a job, a home, children, and I expect they'll all be there for the next 20 years, because the odds say they will (except the job, but there are replacements there, too). People are afraid of change, and are in love with our diet and lifestyle. Most are willing to die rather than change, or give up those things they love.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[CreatureComfort]

But the pill is so much easier, not to mention cheaper at $1,000 per year. Fresh produce, lean meat, and the time and effort to properly prepare it are much more expensive and time consuming than driving through McDonald's. I like a well prepared meal out of high quality foodstuffs as much or more than most people, but most mealtimes I just want basic sustanance that will take the least amount of time and money to keep me going till I have time to sit and enjoy a real meal.

In addition, structured exercise sucks. Jogging, bicycling, lifting weights, racqeutball, I find all of them extremely boring. Most "sports" I like to participate in are very low in exercise value, sailing, motorbikes, flying, hang gliding.

For me, just give me the pill so I don't have to worry about it. Then I could spend much more time just enjoying life instead of worring about how to keep it longer.

Re:Gotta love the 21th Century

[ACPosterChild]

If you don't have regular exercise (at least a weekly aerobic workout like a ball game of some sort), there is a DEFINITE hump that can take up to 1-2 months to get over, depending on your starting fitness level. But, I agree with you in that, once you're over the hump, it's not as if working out feels like sex or something.

However, you do start to recognize and enjoy the tired blood-filled muscle feeling once you start seeing results. Also, once you're working out, if you miss a day or two your body will feel ansy, like you have too much energy. And, if you miss a week or two, you'll find that you have a small "hump" (couple days) to overcome when you start working out again.

Maybe the trick is to teach yourself to quit whining and ENJOY the hard work you're doing, but I very much disagree that there is no such thing as a hump when you start exercising.

Social Problems?

[ajiva]

Aren't people forgetting the social problems? Its like what the mathmatician said in Jurrasic Park: "They were so busy trying to see if they could, they didn't stop and think if they should" (or something to that effect). So if we have a generation (or two) of people living longer, what happens to Social Security? Or housing? Or land prices? Or the environment? Or heck lots and lots of other very limited resources! Would I take one of these pills if it was offered to me for $1k? Damn straight I would, but there are so many issues that I shudder at the effects this will have ~100 years down the road.

Re:Social Problems?

[augmenter]

Hopefully the new technology can make people healthier for a longer time as well. This way, we'll be able to work until we're 75 or even more. I know some people won't like this, but as long as you're healthy and able you should be working, no matter what you're age is. Plus, if I get this right, a lot of that stuff will be preventive medicine and hence cheaper (it's easier to prevent something than to cure it afterwards).

Re:Social Problems?

[TykeClone]

You didn't actually think that you'd get to retire by 70, now did you?

Re:Social Problems?

[Pyromage]

What effect? None. All of that's already going hell for just that reason. This magic would just be the nail on the coffin. Hell, it'd probably be better to finish it off anyway so we can start fixing it.

And then the ethical problems. If you save lives (and don't tell me that curing heart attacks, diabetes, and cancer won't save lives), is it ethical to not do so? Is it better to watch them die, knowing that you could have helped, but didn't just so that you could get your social security check?

To quote someone much smarter than I: If science is the source of problems, ignorance is not the solution.

Re:Social Problems?

[MoogMan]

Indeed. Put simply, it'll screw up natural selection... Sure nano technology is good in the short term, but we must ask ourselves if it is beneficial for us in the region of 1000+ years away.

Re:Social Problems?

[KRYnosemg33]

Science and Technology Studies research on nanotechnology is SERIOUSLY lagging behind what we need. Many NSF grants are mandating s&ts studies along side the hard science, but there are still very few involved in this field.

On another note ... Japan has outspent the US in nano r&d but has put next to 0 yen toward studies for the societal impact of nanotechnology.

So if anyone is going to really screw up society first, it might actually be the Japanese.

Perhaps the federal government is waiting to study how they messed up, to save money? :)

Re:Social Problems?

[augmenter]

When will you people learn? Natural selection doesn't have a goal, there is no road it follows. So, you just can't screw it up or change its direction: it doesn't have one.

Re:Social Problems?

[ron_ivi]

Nonsense. The ability to use and afford nanotechnology will be just as much a part of natural selection as the ability to use and afford a bow-and-arrow or a plow.

Nanotech replacing hearts, lungs, and alzheimer's infected brains will be no different than larger-than-nanotech replacing teeth with knives to cut food. Eventually, natural selection will favor those who don't even bother keeping the protein-based parts of the body in favor of the nano-engineered components. This will be a monumental step for evolution.

Re:Social Problems?

[hunterx11]

We already screw up natural selection with things like education and clothing and toothbrushes and wheelchairs. That is, most of the time our chances of reproducing are not really dependent on our genes. (On a side note, the funny thing about Social Darwinism is that even if Darwinism could be applied to society, the poor would be the most fit since in general there in an inverse relation between a person's wealth and the amount of offspring they produce.)

This is not to say that natural selection does not still affect humans. Perhaps the most obvious case of this is the prevalence of sickle cell anemia in Africans and people of African descent. Even though sickle cell anemia makes it harder to survive and hence reproduce, being a carrier for it gives on resistance to malaria. Of course, for a group like African-Americans, the odds of getting malaria are much, much less than the odds of being born with sickle cell anemia.

I suppose I'm rambling a bit, but my point is that not to "screw up" natural selection in humans, you either have to eliminate anything that gives people advantages they weren't born with, or bring bad good ol' eugenics (even in the US there used to be forced sterilizations). Of course, in the future we'll be able to improve our genes, and use that darned adaption called intelligence to improve ourselves through things like nanotechnology.

Re:Social Problems?

[andalay]

Is it better to watch them die...

Yes. For the following reason: we're already destroying the earth. Keeping us around longer is just going to hasten our use of resources. So essentially we're decreasing the life of the earth's natural resources by increasing our own lives

Re:Social Problems?

[Dimensio]

Moreover, natural selection is simply the process of life forms being less able to survive to reproduce in a given environment. You're not even stopping natural selection, you're just changing the environmental pressures and thus changing the probabilities that certain individuals will be selected out of it. Natural selection still happens, and it's no better or worse for it.

Such lack of understanding of what natural selection is leads creationist morons to think that evolution theory is "directly responsible" for reprehensible eugenics programs, as the eugensists were just "trying to help evolution along".

Re:Social Problems?

[skasingularity]

You're assuming that social security works, there is plenty of houseing, land is cheap, and the environment is in good shape.

On a more serious note, if people start living longer, who's to say they will still have children young? A long time ago, girls would have kids at the age of 14-15, and that was the norm, because people didn't live long. Nowadays, if a girl has a kid under the age of 20-something, it's frowned upon. Whose to say that people won't start having kids later, meaning there would be about the same amount of people living at the same time, generations would just space themselves out accordingly.

I might be wrong about all this, but hey, "if you don't like it, go to Russia!" ;)

Re:Social Problems?

[BerntB]

we're already destroying the earth

In the western world the destruction of nature has slowed dramatically the last few decades. Industrialization brings lots of environmental damage, but it gets smaller with time.

When and if global overpopulation becomes a problem, we might have to find a solution.

You are arguing to let (at a minimum) hundreds of millions of people die -- because you believe there might not be a solution.

I thought of myself as a bit of a misanthrope, but you have me beat by a laaarge factor. :-)

Re:Social Problems?

[andalay]

Err no, the natural selection will just kill us all off after we have no water/air/ozone left. Then the earth will come alive again (maybe?)

Re:Social Problems?

[Eccles]

You didn't actually think that you'd get to retire by 70, now did you?

Heck, I figured I'd be outsourced long before then, anyway...

Re:Social Problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like what the mathmatician said in Jurrasic Park:

That's chao-tician, thank-you-very-much!

Re:Social Problems?

[Justice8096]

Simple - social security doesn't pay enough to get all the shiny new toys that we want, so we would continue working if we could be as healthy as we were at twenty. Then the government can drop social security payments for all but the uncurable (while continuing charging the taxes), mandate the technology as "necessary", and eliminate all retirement. Remember that most NATO nations face dwindling, not increasing, populations. And if we can modify the "fertile time" of women until 60 or 80, we can stop them from having kids until they can afford it, by force if necessary.

Re:Social Problems?

[andalay]

When and if global overpopulation becomes a problem, we might have to find a solution.

I think its already a problem in many parts of the world.

Re:Social Problems?

[Suchetha]

just a few answers of the top of my head
more and more people are already living over 100 years of age
Social security will be restructured. and since the old will outnumber the young thanks to lowering birth rates, guess which way they'll be restructured.
Housing will probably start to revert to a more nuclear family, so us geeks can live as long as we want in our parent's basement
the environment will get better. if you have to live 100+ years in a fscked up environment, you'll make more of an effort to FIX it rather than leaving it for your kids to do
my $0.02, YMMV

Suchetha

Re:Social Problems?

[adminstring]

In the present economy, there are already too many people and not enough jobs... the last thing we need is people working until they are 75. Sociologists point out that one of the benefits of requiring x number of years of education before one starts work in our society is that it keeps people out of the workforce for x years, and thus cuts down on the competition for jobs. Of course, by the time I'm 75, I imagine that this will only be an issue in India, since that's where all the jobs will be :-)

Re:Social Problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think there are too many people on this planet then go and kill yourself.

Re:Social Problems?

[SFBwian]

So, eventually, we'll have overpopulation. Then, governments will institute breeding policies and laws, probably through some sort of lottery system. And thus we'll start breeding for luck.

Tanj! Someone let me know if we find a Ringworld.

Re:Social Problems?

[hunterx11]

In western Europe there is actually a negative population growth. In the United States there is a very small population growth. Basically when countries become richer, their population growth declines. Since only the rich could afford such technology (rich being a relative term), overpopulation would not be such a problem. Besides, nanotech could be applied to other areas like argiculture and water purification. The amount of resources on Earth isn't the amount of raw materials, it's the amount of usuable raw materials. Hence, when technology improves, often the amount of resources increases.

Re:Social Problems?

[BerntB]

I think [overpopulation is] already a problem in many parts of the world.

And in the industrialized world it's not. We have the opposite problem of an aging population.

See e.g. this.

Poor subsistence farmers are the population problem because when they get enough food which makes their large number of children survive.

So the best way forward is to make the world a better and richer place for everybody -- for both moral and logical reasons. This is happening now in India and China, which have large part of the total poor world population. (This optimism hurts for an old misanthrope. But what am I to do if my mind leads me somewhere?)

I'm sorry, but you seem to not have considered your opinions enough. You just bought some well chewed propaganda without looking seriously at all sides? I did the same when I also was a teenager a long time ago...

Re:Social Problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that we shouldn't extend human life unless we find a way for the government to be able to pay out benefits... get real. I'd give up social security in favor of working at mcdonalds forever if I could live in a youthful physique for 200 years. It's people like you that piss me off. If you want to live longer/have more children/whatever figure out a way to support yourself. If that happens to be scraping the chewing gum off the soles of rich people's boots, then so be it. The government doesn't owe people anything.

Re:Social Problems?

[ArsonSmith]

I sure hope so, I could get out sourced. My company profits could go through the roof and my 401k would be so profitable I wouldn't have to work any more. Outsourceing rulz.

Re:Social Problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such lack of understanding of what natural selection is leads creationist morons to think that evolution theory is "directly responsible" for reprehensible eugenics programs, as the eugensists were just "trying to help evolution along".

No, the theory isn't at fault for this, however the morons who came up with the eugenics programs are, and they most certainly did think they were advancing our species according to their (limited) knowledge of evolution.

Now then, this does not by any means reflect on the truth of evolution; indeed, it cannot be logically relevant in any way. If anything, it tells us that scientific theories are a poor basis for a code of ethics or morality, especially those theories we do not understand very well just yet.

anatomynauts...

[beeplet]

I tried to read it, but never got past the word "anatomynaughts" in the second paragraph. Are those like a cross between astronauts, anatomy, and... nothing?

Seriously, if you're going to make up words, at least spell them correctly. :P

Re:anatomynauts...

[infinite9]

That reminds me of a joke! What do you get when you cross a Helicopter, Elephant, and Rhinocerous? Helifino!

bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The demand for these health improvements/preventatives will be so great that the companies will be able to afford incredible price-fixing. No matter how simple it may be one day, these things are pipe-dreams for 95% of america. Only the riches will be able to afford the prices the industry sets.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world with social medical systems (which I don't personally care for, though I admit in this situation it may benefit them), it will possibly be mandated that such improvements be the right of every citizen. You'll see the longevity in other countries soar while those in the united states plateu.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't anyone modded my post up? Come on!

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

come on cockramming faggos! mod me the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on. Fuckholes.

PLEASE moderate me? Or at least reply? Or something? Don't ignore me you fucking dildos!

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to reply. You want to mod me +5. I know you do cumstained asshats.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

+5! +5! +5!

COME ON DICK SMOKERS!

I know you humperrumpers want to. S0000tpid amerkan dikes!

Is the magic pill available in a bundle with

[Pyromage]

my flying car? Can I get a discount if I get them both together? I'll pay another $500 if you throw in some cold-fusion!

Wake me when they can demo the stuff.

Re:Is the magic pill available in a bundle with

[tunabomber]

The year 2025 returned your call, it left a message:

"Sure, as long as you don't need it bundled with Duke Nukem Forever. I'm afraid that still hasn't hit the shelves yet."

Re:Is the magic pill available in a bundle with

[rtaylor]

But you can build a flying car (good luck getting a license to fly it anywhere useful). Buy one of those 1-man helicopter kits for $30k and toss an electic motor on the wheels for forward motion.

Most people cannot drive without crashing a few times in their life. Putting those people into the air wouldn't help.

Cold fusion works fine but you cannot get surplus energy out of it, so that'll be a little more than $500.

Re:Is the magic pill available in a bundle with

[tekunokurato]

I used to agree with you, but if it weren't for forward looking scientific analysis, we'd never have the foresight to preemptively take care of future problems which are sure to arrive. Specifically in this case, knowing that we'll hit this point in the future might lend the foresight to extend the retirement age beyond its present time. While you may be no more personally interested in the story than I am in hardened PHP, it doesn't mean the story is irrelevent or shouldn't be published.

Re:Is the magic pill available in a bundle with

[Geoff-with-a-G]

The parent-poster's point (which I agree with) isn't that we shouldn't be doing this research or conceiving of possibilities; we should. The point is that predictions like "in twenty years we'll all be eating nano-puff cereal and we'll be able to breathe water and live forever" are as ridiculous as all the "in the crazy future of 1980 we'll all have flying cars and in 1990 people will be living on the moon" predictions in the past. They're taking research which has recently made a leap, assuming that it will continue to have breakthroughs with the same constant speed, and ignoring scores of hurdles.

By all means, announce the new breakthroughs, tell us what you're working on next, but please spare us the 25 year forecast.

Goodbye Steroids!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello nano bodybuilders and wrestlers! Whatcha gonna do when Nanomania runs wild on you?!

it's coming

[axonal]

Borg Technology
Coming to a stardeck near you.

life in the future

[chocolatetrumpet]

Right now I am eating pizza. I don't exercise enough and I am too fat, and at this rate I will die of heart disease by about age 38. I'm also drinking coke.

So if in the future I could eat anything I wanted, never exercise, and still have perfect nutrition and physique... what will become of the world?

A bunch of really hot, lazy, horny, well fed people having a good time? Sounds like heaven...

Re:life in the future

[sjwaste]

I'm also drinking coke.

Well, I suppose you're marginally better than doing all of the above and sniffing coke.

Re:life in the future

[Pyromage]

Hell, it'll probably just average out ;) By living unhealthily and taking magic pills, I can probably just manage a normal lifespan 8-}

Re:life in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

there's this thing called a salad.

Re:life in the future

[blancolioni]

Well, I suppose you're marginally better than doing all of the above and sniffing coke.

Actually, that would at least keep his weight down.

Re:life in the future

[Tiro]

If you look at the future of the world-economy, it doesn't look quite so bright as that. Given limited natural resources, another 50-75 years of growth at current rates is unsustainable. The trade deficits in the U.S. can only be sustained for so long before the dollar crashes, and that will happen when the day comes that the U.S. is no longer seen as the safest bet for capital investment. It happened to Amsterdam, it happened to the City of London and it will happen on Wall Street.

Also consider the melting polar ice caps-->flooding of significant areas of the earth in what, twenty or thirty years? Remember that many economic hubs of the world are on coasts [NY, LA, Houston, Amsterdam, London, Singapore, et al].

I used to wish I could be born in the future. However now I believe that my generation could be one of the last to enjoy the good life on Earth.. at least until some of these problems get resolved, if they can be. There is simply not enough wealth to go around to make the world a peaceful place forever. Check out the political economy argument in Chaos and Governnance in the Modern World System, written way back in 1998 before the problems for the U.S. economy that are apparent today became so obvious, and certainly before the U.S. experiences Sept 11 or started acting so [overtly] militaristic.

Re:life in the future

[Azghoul]

Man, smell the coffee, it's a great day outside!

You are far, far too gloomy. Amsterdam and London still exist (with plenty of big money action too). I think we'll probably pull through.

Occurs to me that there was even less wealth hundreds of years ago... we always seem to pull through.

Re:life in the future

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

However now I believe that my generation could be one of the last to enjoy the good life on Earth.. at least until some of these problems get resolved, if they can be.

I wouldn't worry. Over the course of history there were plenty of empires that rised up and fell into ruins. There was always a new empire to replace it, usualy seperated by a few centuries of babarism. Perhaps in a few decades/centuries it's our turn to vanish. I suggest we start building the Foundation and prepare for the coming of the barbarians.

Re:life in the future

[edheler]

You have an awfully depressing view of the future.

Quite possibly the best thing which could happen to humanity would be for someone to invent a device/drug/whatever which would allow every human to live as an in-shape twenty-something until an accident killed them. If that were to happen we would have many incentives to actually fix a large number of our problems. Everyone having a long, healthy life would not allow the luxury of passing the buck to the next generation to solve the problems of our making. We would have to become long term thinkers because of a long life span.

Re:life in the future

[kurosawdust]

A bunch of really hot, lazy, horny, well fed people having a good time? Sounds like heaven...

Really? That doesn't sound to me to be much closer to heaven than we are right now. Read Flow by Csikszentmihalyi, or, if you don't feel like spending money on books or going down to the library, perhaps you might consider the gigantic mountain of evidence you see everywhere around you on a daily basis that tells you that the Good Life has within epsilon of nothing to do with Fine Wine, Money, and Orgasms. Or to put it another way: imagine someone in 1800 saying how wonderful it would be when the time comes around when people don't have to farm their own food, don't have to work 12-14 hour days, and are totally free to realize their own potential. In a society that great and advanced, happiness would be the law of the land and nobody would ever be depressed, right?

Re:life in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

By living unhealthily and taking magic pills, I can probably just manage a normal lifespan 8-}

Those jokes were funnier before I turned 40. :-(

Re:life in the future

[(1)down]

or rome at its peak.

Re:life in the future

[okmijnuhb]

"A bunch of really hot, lazy, horny, well fed people having a good time? Sounds like heaven..." Yeah, except for one thing...they're all really old!

Re:life in the future

[Parsec]

Good point... but can you teach an old human new tricks? How long will it take before they realize they will have to live in the world they create? Will it cause major wars as countries "plan" ahead by hoarding resources?

Re:life in the future

[shadowbearer]

No, it's more likely to be a bunch of really hot, lazy, horny, well fed people making war on each other because they are pumped up on hormones and have nothing better to do (all the good jobs already having been taken) and because there are entirely too many of them elbow to elbow.

Oh, and they'd be making lots more kids. Who would grow up the same way (and have even less education/learning/wisdom than the previous generation, because what's the point of *working* for something if you can get most or all of the benefits from a pill?)

The only thing that would prevent disaster would be a new frontier. Like...space. Give those who want something to do, something to do. Let some of them get killed off -that's social evolution (which is stagnating, already, here in the US)

SB

Re:life in the future

[Geoff-with-a-G]

perhaps you might consider the gigantic mountain of evidence you see everywhere around you on a daily basis that tells you that the Good Life has within epsilon of nothing to do with Fine Wine, Money, and Orgasms.

That's funny, I'm looking at the gigantic mountain of evidence, but it seems to be saying the opposite. Maybe mine's broken?

Re:life in the future

[kurosawdust]

That's funny, I'm looking at the gigantic mountain of evidence, but it seems to be saying the opposite. Maybe mine's broken?

If you look around and see that peoples' level of happiness is in direct proportion to the amount of money and sex they have (contrary to all psychological studies on the subject, btw ;)), then I'd say either yours is broken as you posit, or you're gathering all your sample data from MTV.

Re:life in the future

[Geoff-with-a-G]

Acutally, the evidence I'm referring to is personal experience. I am happier when I have sex. I am happier when I have money. I am happier when drinking fine wine.

I have limited faith in psychological studies, and even less faith in the interpretations most people (in this case, you) derive from those studies. I have a great deal of faith in personally observed data. Of course, YMMV, which is why I said "maybe mine's broken." I guess it's possible that in a sea of billions of people all desperately seeking sex and money, I'm the only one who actually enjoys those things.

Doesn't really seem likely though.

Re:life in the future

[kurosawdust]

I guess it's possible that in a sea of billions of people all desperately seeking sex and money, I'm the only one who actually enjoys those things.

Of course not - I enjoy sex and money as well, but they don't make me a Happy Person. I have a feeling we're going to get trapped in a bit of semantic gymnastics here, but what I'm talking about is lasting happiness - maybe you can call it contentedness perhaps? It's been shown that being rich doesn't make you lastingly happy (perhaps Martin Seligman had a better idea when he proposed a semantic split between these two ideas by using (iirc) "enjoyment" for the relatively fleeting type of happiness provided by hedonism, and "gratification" for the much longer-lasting happiness provided by active involvement in one's life and projects (what Csikszentimihalyi called "flow")) - for example, a study of lottery winners showed that after their initial "holy CRAP IM FUCKING RICH LETS ALL GO BUY PORSCHES AND ABANDON THEM AND THEN BUY MORE" cannon-shot of happiness, they retreat back to their "baseline" - the only thing that makes a *real* difference to increase that baseline somewhat permanently is "flow".

Re:life in the future

[Hacker_John_MD]

"... many economic hubs of the world are on coasts [ ... London ..."

....Most people would probably not call the Thames an Ocean ...

I'm Troy McClure

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such tiny bodybuilding films as "Pumping Iron Filings" and and "Terminator 4: The Rise of the Micro-Machines"

Go all the way

[physicsphairy]

As long as you're going to have little nano robots carry out your body's natural functions, why not go all the way, i.e. brain in a vat?

you love the guessing game

[sjwaste]

Don't we all? When a technology barely gets underway, everyone pours out their guesses as to how far it will be in 20 years. Remember Conan doing those "in the year 2000" sketches? I swear back in the 50's people thought we'd have flying cars by now!

Like any technology, the research dollars will probably go towards those projects with the highest expected returns. I might be a cynic, but rather than curing a disease, I'll bet we'll find a new flood of cosmetic upgrades.

Re:you love the guessing game

[lousyd]

Like any technology, the research dollars will probably go towards those projects with the highest expected returns. I might be a cynic, but rather than curing a disease, I'll bet we'll find a new flood of cosmetic upgrades.

Maybe because people expect to pay for cosmetic upgrades and don't expect to pay for their disease being cured?

Re:you love the guessing game

[physicsphairy]

I swear back in the 50's people thought we'd have flying cars by now!

Well, I guess they were right. . .

Re:you love the guessing game

[bravehamster]

I might be a cynic, but rather than curing a disease, I'll bet we'll find a new flood of cosmetic upgrades.

From a biological standpoint, health and beauty are very closely related. In fact, you might say the best way to make someone beautiful is to make them healthy first. That's not be how we do things now, but it will be the best way once we have the technology.

Re:you love the guessing game

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because people expect to pay for cosmetic upgrades and don't expect to pay for their disease being cured?

You must live in a country with nationalized health care.

Re:you love the guessing game

[Black_Logic]

back in the 50's people thought we'd have flying cars by now!

That sure does come up a lot. The fact is there is one. It's pointed out here all the time, that Moller skycar. The barrier for everyone having a flying car is not the technology, it's the practicality. Air traffic control is already a difficult thing to keep in check. That's with proffesional pilots and proffesional upkeep on the vehicles. The public just isn't clamouring for flying cars. Medicine is a whole other animal. People are dying to get their hands on life lengthening medicine. (Bad pun, sorry. :) )

Re:you love the guessing game

[PsiPsiStar]

Yeah, and then watch them run off and get hepatitis

Re:you love the guessing game

[okmijnuhb]

"I swear back in the 50's people thought we'd have flying cars by now!"

It'll never happen with the way speeding tickets are given out, and states that can't stand to let you travel from point "a" to point "b" with any amount of speed.
The closest thing we have to high speed transportation are sport bikes.
Even air travel is slow, with 2& 3 hour in advance recommended check-ins, layovers, security checks, delays.
Imagine the types of traffic citations with flying cars.

Re:you love the guessing game

[sjwaste]

Well, I'd argue that while cars and bikes have gotten more stable at higher speed, drivers havent. The average driver is still a moron that doesn't know where the corners of his/her car are, eats while driving, and attempts to do all sorts of other shit behind the wheel. If only we could make drivers less dangerous...

Re:you love the guessing game

[shadowbearer]

Sorry, but that's crap. Beauty is a totally subjective standard, but health isn't.

I know this really ugly former Marine sergeant who runs 10 miles a day. He's ten years older than me (in his 50s) but he could outrun, outlast, outfight, and outdrink 99.9% of anyone, not to mention people who are "beautiful" - and then get up the next day and do it all over. If there's anyone I've ever known likely to live to be a hundred years old, it's him.

His only lament is that he's so damned ugly (he is, even speaking as another male) that he can't find an even semi-goodlooking woman who'll sleep with him. (Well, he does have one fault - as I remind him every so often :)

What was your point again?

SB

Re:you love the guessing game

[Anonymous Coward]

society is capable of doing many things at once.

humans dont operate by all working on ONE THING.

some will do scientific research to cure those diseases.
others will as you said, cosmetic upgrades.
but regardless humans are multifaceted and concerned and dedicated with numerous things.

if all people did was worry about diseases, the question would then be, why bother, what about the fun and enjoyment of here and now.

Re:you love the guessing game

[Anonymous Coward]

" swear back in the 50's people thought we'd have flying cars by now!"

You can buy a flying car right now the real question you should be asking is why are they not in mass production ? The answer is the majority of people don't want to pay a premium for a flying car because its impracticale on a day to day basis.

Re:you love the guessing game

[Geoff-with-a-G]

The barrier for everyone having a flying car is not the technology, it's the practicality.

But that is the point. When people make these crazy predictions about what life will be like in 20 years, they're looking only at the technology research, not at the scores of practical factors that actually make up society. For example, there's fear. Look at the reaction people have to genetically enhanced foods and tell me that everyone will be clamoring to fill their body with tiny robots.

In the 50's they weren't saying that one company would be capable of producing a car that flew. They were envisioning a society in which everyone flew in passenger vehicles like tiny planes and nobody needed to drive on the roads anymore. Similarly, I believe that in 25 years, scientists very well may have developed a nano-technology based treatment that fixes several currently existing medical problems. But I don't believe that everyone will be popping a pill. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but these predictions are ludicrous.

Re:you love the guessing game

[steveha]

The fact is there is one. It's pointed out here all the time, that Moller skycar.

I would love for that thing to be real. I fear it isn't. They never actually fly it. I think they said that they can't fly it for insurance reasons, but if it actually worked I'd expect to see them at least do a hover demo.

steveha

Heil Hitler !

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your concerns. A certain German gentleman in 1930 acted on them. He had an effective solution to solving the problem of certain people living too long.

Double entendres and all that...

[Faust7]

"Skin is being sprayed by ink jet printers onto surfaces. Then it grows."

My inkjet printer already does that.

Then "it" certainly does grow.

nanoo nanoo

[maxbang]

Ah, jeez. We just had a post regarding buzzwords and their annyonace/dangers. Here we go again with a round of theorizing based on the latest tech craze to hit the mass media. I can't wait for this to develop into the umpteenth bad science Hollywood blockbuster. I can see the pitch now: "And there's this ship that's made out of nano-titties, and it's the only way to make it into the Earth's core or else the climate will shift from nano-blizzards from nano-stars and cause a nano-age of nano-ice. Now gimme my 100 mill or I'll nano-size your penis."

Re:nanoo nanoo

[sjwaste]

Are you referring to the Nanomatrix? Some Nanoreincarnation of Keanu Reeves is sure to star in it years from now.

Current state of nanotechnology?

[Hobobo]

I hear a lot of predictions about what nanotechnology might be able to do in 10-20 years. Can someone point me to some articles showing what researchers have been able to do with nanotechnology today?

Re:Current state of nanotechnology?

[ResidntGeek]

They've been able to make video games about it. Deus Ex and Deus Ex: Invisible War

Re:Current state of nanotechnology?

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is poorly named - there's already nano-body medicine, and it isn't "robotic". Turns out that camels have antibodies that are 1/10th or less the size of most mammels', yet just as functional and specific. (I know - nano is misused here; you'd think people steeped in the latin of medical terminology would know better.) Best part is that they are much easier to make and store than human antibodies:
http://www.innovations-report.de/html /berichte/med izin_gesundheit/bericht-29152.html
I still think that the real nanobots will come via biology rather than quantum-level mechanical engineering.

Re:Current state of nanotechnology?

[RandoMBU]

Yeah, here's something they can do with nanotechnology today.

Where there is incredible potential for good... it might be worth examining the potential drawbacks as well.

Re:Current state of nanotechnology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.. isn't there a difference between a nanobody and a nanobot? I don't know this nanolingo.. what defines a bot anyway?

MOD PARENT UP! :D

[kunudo]

lameness filter

Extended longevity! Great!

[Faust7]

"(Because of nanomedicine) death will be caused almost exclusively by accidents, wars, homicides and suicides. There will be no medically caused causes of death like heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases."

You'll be a 200-year-old, withered, repulsive, barely-coherent husk of a human being... but dammit, you'll be healthy!

Re:Extended longevity! Great!

[mclove]

Well no, because if nanomedicine can do this much for real problems, imagine what it'll do for plastic surgery. Artificial skin isn't even that difficult to grow compared to bona fide organs. People will look pretty much whatever age they want to be.

Re:Extended longevity! Great!

[shaitand]

Actually if the nanobots are set to work producing healthy cells and are replaced annually.

Unlike the regular cells in the human body which age, the nanocell producers will be replaced fresh... no sagging, no wrinkles, no problems.

Heart gets too old? no problem, we just grow a new one using your own DNA, and then use nanobots to replace the scar tissue with healthy tissue after the transplant.

If all goes well, eventually the entire human body will be repairable/replaceable/modular. Rather than Death, you'll just have routine maintainence.

Improving the genetic pool of the human species through genocide is frowned upon. But what about improving it via granting virtual immortality to those who have traits we want to encourage. Giving them the opportunity to have offspring, after offspring after offspring.

Re:Extended longevity! Great!

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Improving the genetic pool of the human species through genocide is frowned upon. But what about improving it via granting virtual immortality to those who have traits we want to encourage. Giving them the opportunity to have offspring, after offspring after offspring.

Would that be a brave new world to live in? I wouldn't mind seeing people maintaining the genepool, but I sure hope we first make corruption a capital crime. Else the future will be full with countless copies of Bush Jr and simular.
And for those who would reply with "being rich is a trait we want": Do you really thing that Daddy Richguy isn't going to buy a few politicians to give junior immortality too? Even if junior is a waste of carbon.

Re:Extended longevity! Great!

[shaitand]

Well the obvious solution is to grant me immortality first. And then leave me to give the final approval as to who else can be granted immortality.

Let's see, do I approve of me, yes. There see, process works great! ;)

Re:Extended longevity! Great!

[michael_cain]

You'll be a 200-year-old, withered, repulsive, barely-coherent husk of a human being... but dammit, you'll be healthy!

Emphasis on the barely-coherent... I'm 50 and have already noticed that some amount of memory function is impaired -- I "lose" words, I don't learn new stuff as quickly or as easily, etc. Heinlein's novels about the long-lifers also touch on the topic of keeping track of memories -- characters that go looking for a book they haven't finished, but that was 20 years ago. As I understand it, the experts still have no real idea about how human memory functions down at the levels of cells and their interconnections. So maybe the nanobots will be able to target cancer cells in 20 years, and maybe they'll be able to clear out blocked arteries, but I really doubt that they're going to be able to patch up our failing brains.

Re:Extended longevity! Great!

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Right, you just want an excuse to send young men on a deathly and pointless adventure to bring you an useless artifact lost centuries ago because no one really cared about it, just to tell them their immortality is in another castle.

Re:Extended longevity! Great!

[shaitand]

lol did I post in the wrong thread? I though we were talking about nanobot granted immortality here ;)

The same applies to the grail to though I suppose.
And yes, more young men on pointless and deathly adventures means less competition for the chicks here... think about it ;P

Proprietary Nano?

[JRSiebz]

Let's start a petition now for the software in the 'nano-bots' be open source. I don't need all of the security and stability flaws of M$ with the coding genius of Diebold operating running around in my bloodstream.

And they'll never catch on at all unless they're low carb :-P haha

Re:Proprietary Nano?

[Anonymous Coward]

I second this motion. And Linus Torvalds should start on the kernel. Then Bill Gates can steal it and say it's his (like he did with most of DOS and Windows)

(sorry for anon posting, I don't post enough to bother with an account)

Toxitity issue

[UrgleHoth]

One issue I've not read in the articles posted here is the one concerning the toxicity of nano materials, such as buckyballs.

Also, right now on wbur is a BBC documentary on nanotech.

Re:Toxitity issue

[Azghoul]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/2 9/0328251&mode=thread&tid=134&tid=191

You obviously weren't paying attention. There's a nice little search box at the bottom of the page (you turn it into a real link, I'm lazy).

Re:Toxitity issue

[tunabomber]

One thing about nanotech that people need to understand: all it is is precision chemistry. The stuff that the press hypes as "nanomaterials" are just molecules produced using nanotech. But there's nothing that makes nanotech inherently more dangerous than "old school" chemistry. Some of the chemicals that are produced are dangerous. Some are not. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be careful about what we develop using nanotech, but rather that it doesn't pose any fundamentally new dangers.

Buckballs may be toxic, but so are a zillion other carbon-containing chemicals: benzene, gasoline, DDT, etc.

You're forgetting the essential

[vlad_petric]

The older the people, the more conservative they become.

Reminds me of Asimov's writings, where the first wave of space colonization eventually fails (among other reasons) because people live hundreds of years.

Re:You're forgetting the essential

[Patik]

Reminds me of Asimov's writings, where the first wave of space colonization eventually fails (among other reasons) because people live hundreds of years.

In the middle ages people lived a lot less than we do now (half as long?), but society adapted and it will adapt again when living to 120 becomes the norm.

Re:You're forgetting the essential

[phaze3000]

Also, in biblical times people lived hundreds of years, and they seeemed to get by alright.

Remember, everything you read in the bible is true!

Scary.

[Exiler]

How long till we have Johnny Mnemonic-esque super corporations playing profits and dividends with life and death? Not that the current ones are much better, but if they could have control over your 'medicine' after you ate it, imagine the extortion possibilities. Get ready to bend over and take the corporate suppository.

Re:Scary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Marx skipped a step?
Industrialization/Urbanization
Technolizat ion
Nanolization
Communism ... profit?

You are right

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. So, let's turn over all corporate power (and all of our personal economic decisionmaking) to the government. The government knows what is best, and it is small than any corporation anyway. With the government, there is no coercion.

Re:You are right

[Exiler]

I didn't suggest that it should be regulated, mostly because I don't believe it can be. Think of the markup you could put on a proven 'eternal life' pill. It's hard to regulate coke because of it's markup when smuggled, this stuff would be even harder to control because they could charge whatever they wanted for it and still have people who'd buy it.

Future spam

[Black Art]

I am expecting the flood of spam for "Natural Nano Bodybuilding Pills".

Who would have thought that our junkmail filters will need to be programmed to filter out "nano nano".

Re:Future spam

[shadowbearer]

Sigh.

How soon kids forget.

It's "Nanu Nanu".

SB

$1,000 a year?

[rolux]

Around 2025, you'll pay $1,000 a year for a nanopill that will extend your life by suppressing heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases.

What percentage of the world population will earn $1,000 a year by 2025? (And if that percentage turns out to be surprisingly high because so many of those who don't make $1,000 have died from AIDS by 2025 -- would that weaken or strenghten the argument?) Heart attacks and diabetes seem to be pretty rampant in the North and West, but globally, when you think the "future of medicine", you'd rather think AIDS, and think $1 a month. Call it Nanoprice -- if there has to be something nano to it...

Re:$1,000 a year?

[fermion]

Like most medicine, it will be the privilege of those that can afford it. Basic medical care is not expensive, but specialists, medicine, and the like is available to a minority of the worlds population. Even in the US, I doubt the majority has easy access to the full range of medical care.

In any case, the $1,000 mark is probably way low, even in current dollars. This will probably be 'experimental' for a long while, not covered by insurance, but easily available to the top 5% of earners in the US. Manufacturers will probably charge $1,000 a month. Their marketing will ask how much is avoiding a heart transplant worth? Those who can afford it will buy the bots, those who can't will continue to employ the surgeons.

To be honest the first bots will be likely be for things such as hair loss, sexual disfunction, maybe cosmetic age reversal. The manufacturers will not want to jeopardize the profits of existing surgeons. Over time, as fewer surgeons are trained, the useful bots will be manufactured.

Re:$1,000 a year?

[Geoff-with-a-G]

To be honest the first bots will be likely be for things such as hair loss, sexual disfunction, maybe cosmetic age reversal. The manufacturers will not want to jeopardize the profits of existing surgeons. Over time, as fewer surgeons are trained, the useful bots will be manufactured.

I agree that this is the way that it will go, but I disagree it's for the benefit of existing surgeons and I disagree that this isn't the "useful" treatment. I'd rather live 100 years in a 25 year-old body than 300 years in a body that ages normally, and I suspect the vast majority of the population feels the same way. Perfectly legitimate customer demand will drive anti-wrinkle treatments beyond anti-heart-attack treatments. To call life-extension more "useful" than life-enhancement implies you have some sort of purpose, which a vast population is somehow useful for. I'm curious what that is.

I think nano-biology will be the least useful

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it will be easier to discover all the signaling that initiates already-existing deployment, building and repair systems that occur naturally, than to have tiny machines engineering the fixes. I think nanotech is going to have plenty of potential, but the least in biology, unless we are talking about adding new features that have never existed before. I think we are talking flying car timeframes for such advances.

And what about athletics?

[ezraekman]

Around 2025, you'll pay $1,000 a year for a nanopill that will extend your life by suppressing heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases. Other scientists say that nanotechnology will be used to build synthetic bone and tissue...

In other news, a similar pill allowing for massive increases in strength and muscle mass via constant electric stimulation was banned for use in most public sporting events, though several athletes have been caught in a massive sting operation. However, due to newly-released self-destructive nanobots contained in the pill, it has become very difficult to track the use of such mechanisms.

Seriously, while the potential benefits from such technology will, in my opinion, greatly outweigh the dangers... I can see the potential for some pretty heavy "fairness" implications coming up. We'll see...

Re:And what about athletics?

[Anonymous Coward]

So we must discard technology that'll make our collective lives better, in order to keep some sports with arbitrary rules fair. Right!

Practice what you preach. If RIAA members should change their business plans in face of new computer tech, sporting bodies should also change their rules in face of new nanotech.

Re:And what about athletics?

[ezraekman]

Try reading my post again. I've taken the opposite stance that you seem to think I have.

Re:And what about athletics?

[Anonymous Coward]

fairness

They already have these problems with guys getting their wang lopped off, and a boob job. They call themselves women (6' 4", 185lb women) and get involved in sports, and dominate against natural females.

Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is...

[HockeyPuck]

According to Robert Malthus... His hypothesised that (unchecked) population growth always exceeds the growth of means of subsistence. Actual (checked) population growth is kept in line with food supply growth by "positive checks" (starvation, disease and the like, elevating the death rate) and "preventive checks" (i.e. postponement of marriage, etc. that keep down the birthrate), both of which are characterized by "misery and vice". Malthus's hypothesis implied that actual population always has a tendency to push above the food supply. Because of this tendency, any attempt to ameliorate the condition of the lower classes by increasing their incomes or improving agricultural productivity would be fruitless, as the extra means of subsistence would be completely absorbed by an induced boost in population. As long as this tendency remains, Malthus argued, the "perfectibility" of society will always be out of reach. Can we really deal with a population that lives to be 150? 200? If the earth's populatoin is just over 6Billion... would we sustain a population of 7-8 Billion? I live in the sanjose area and they are buildings/houses on every hill in the area, of which 5 years ago the hills were still covered in grass. And the higher the population, the quicker we consume resources...

Less Hype, More Action.

[Anonymous Coward]

There needs to be more action. All I see is hype. How many times will I read what is possible before ever seeing a finished product? Maybe these "Scientists" should focus more on following through with their projects than speculating what is possible in the future?

I, for one...

[melikamp]

I, for one, welcome our new nanobot overlords!

Hairloss

[Lord_Dweomer]

As I'm sure many others of you with male pattern baldness are wondering, WHEN THE HELL WILL NANOTECH CURE HAIRLOSS?!?!?!

Seriously, with all of todays modern medicine, the best we can come up with is Minoxidil which speeds regrowth and Propecia which inhibits DHT. And you need to keep paying for these or your hair goes bye bye, not to mention if its Minox dependant, you lose all the hair you regrew with the Minox when you stop.

I can't wait till serious science deals away with these monthy costs and gives me a one time cure for hairloss. I don't care if it is a couple thousand dollars, because in the long run, that is worth not having to apply topicals/take pills and constantly worry whether or not they're working.

Re:Hairloss

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could stop being such a self-absorbed, vain, whiny prick and just deal with it. I don't give a fuck about your hair, neither should you.

Re:Hairloss

[Anonymous Coward]

Shave your head. Get a number 2. Embrace your baldness.

Re:Hairloss

[finkployd]

Let me make a suggestion, exercise. Bodybuild, whatever. Eventually you are going to be bald, but create a kick ass body and nobody is going to care at all.

Finkployd

Re:Hairloss

[Lord_Dweomer]

Brave words from an anonymous loser. I don't care if you give a fuck about my hair, but to me, it isn't aesthetically pleasing, and I want to be able to do something about that.

Re:Hairloss

[G-funk]

Americans and their obsession with hair. If you're going bald, shave off what's left, get a nice even finish. I've never met anybody male or female who cares if others are bald, and I've got a few mates who went cue-ball at 18, and it's never bothered them. I've even got a couple of mates who find bald women sexy! Personally, I've got the ability to grow a nice head of hair, but it's been getting a regular #2 recently, and I've spend a fair amount of time in the past with it as bald as I can get it with a razor... BALD IS BEAUTIFUL! :D

Re:Hairloss

[Geoff-with-a-G]

I've never met anybody male or female who cares if others are bald

You really haven't met many people then... Particularly not many " Americans and their obsession with hair"

Yeah well..

[judicar]

I'm still waiting on the hovercar and vacations on the moon they promised me 50 years ago.

Old technology...

[Black Parrot]

We've known for millennia how to make an organic potion called 'beer', which, when consumed in sufficient quantity, reconfigures your metabolism so your big head can take a rest and let your little head do the thinking for a few hours. Then, after the potion has washed out of your system, control is returned to your big head until the next dose.

Are we ready for Immortality?

[Moosifer]

All this no disease and living forever stuff is wonderful. Until you start thinking about other issues like the psychological implications of "immortiality" or more importantly, the practical issues of over-population. Maybe it will be metered, being available only to the rich. Or will lobbyists, civil liberties groups and insurance companies make it available to the masses? No amount of water conservation will enable us to sustain global populations of 20 billion people. But even if we figure out how to synthesize resources (shouldn't this come before the immortality quest?) what about space? As it is, I can't afford to buy a house in the Bay Area - what happens when the poplation quadrples because no one gets sick or dies, and the tech-elite remain vibrant and economically viable until they're 150 or older? This really is all great stuff, but we're not prepared for a total end to our current survival principles. We don't seem to be introducing these advancements in a reasonable order.

Re:Are we ready for Immortality?

[strook]

No amount of water conservation will enable us to sustain global populations of 20 billion people.

Yeah, and 640k should be enough for anybody....

Re:Are we ready for Immortality?

[Azghoul]

You're right, we should just keep letting people die from disease that we /could/ cure, just because of some potential problems.

Shit man, you think if we can figure out how to biologically live forever that we won't be able to figure out how to do so politically, geographically, and so on?

What makes you think that we won't be able to set up efficient solar-powered desalination plants, or create who the hell knows what else given our new 120+ year working careers.

LOL Imagine: 93 Years J2EE Experience. Damn, that IS a nightmare!

Re:Are we ready for Immortality?

[Guppy06]

"No amount of water conservation will enable us to sustain global populations of 20 billion people."

If you're immortal, taking the slow boat to Alpha Centauri doesn't sound all that bad any more.

Re:Are we ready for Immortality?

[bunnyThor]

Living longer, healthier, more productive lives might count as a quality of life improvement, yes? Consider then the improvements in the quality of life in the First World countries, and corresponding drop in birthrates that always accompanies it. When life is good and less hazardous the social and biological imperatives to breed become less necessary and urgent, and birthrates plummet. Much of Europe currently has a negative growth rate, and the US would likely be the same without our immigration friendly policies.

So, if cheap and effective means for extending and improving life were distributed globally, world population would most likely decline quickly in just a few decades and resources that are currently imperiled could be built up in surplusses to counter the effects of almost any natural disaster. Much misery could be counteracted or prevented quicky and cheaply given the new proportions of largesse.

Of course for these reasons and others, the nature of national economies (not to mention nations) would certainly transform in size and composition as the populations did. We might not be able to accurately predict or model these with our burning fuse outlook on motality, but it is safe to say the predicting disaster based on the continuation of present trends is dubious at best.

Re:Are we ready for Immortality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sterilization will be mandatory for those who have not had children yet, and wish to take the pill. Those that have children will not be given the pill.

Re:Are we ready for Immortality?

[Geoff-with-a-G]

The problem with this theory, the "let's solve over-population through space-colonization" theory, is that it requires the cost of transporting someone through space to be less than the cost of feeding and housing them. Right now we're leaning the other way by a HUGE margin. I'm not saying we shouldn't seek to colonize other planets, I'm just saying we aren't going to solve any population problems by putting 3 billion people on a ship.

Re:Are we ready for Immortality?

[Guppy06]

"is that it requires the cost of transporting someone through space to be less than the cost of feeding and housing them."

If the premise is the overcrowding of the planet and the availability of local food and housing is nonexistent, then interstellar travel will always be cheaper.

Re:Are we ready for Immortality?

[Geoff-with-a-G]

If the premise is the overcrowding of the planet and the availability of local food and housing is nonexistent, then interstellar travel will always be cheaper.

You think we'll have zero grain but plenty of spaceships lying around? Food and housing will never be nonexistent, just more scarce relative to the number of people (I'm not sure that will actually happen, but the scenario being envisioned assumes it). The cost of cramming a second person into a tiny house is still less than building them a spaceship, and it's not like the homeless and starving are going to be building their own.

Re:Are we ready for Immortality?

[Anonymous Coward]

In today's world of high fuel costs we are forced to try and improve the efficiency of our aging motors. Think of the internal combustion engine as a giant air pump that pulls air in thru the intake and pushes it out thru the exhaust.

If we make it easier for the engine to cycle the air-flow thru itself then we have increased the efficiency of the engine thereby increasing mileage and performance in one fell swoop. Highly restrictive air cleaner assemblies and exhaust systems are the easiest culprits to deal with without disassembling the engine.

Bah, Humbug

[ColdWetDog]

This is just another collection of some cute techno tricks, some mumbo jumbo and rehash of the last ten years of what ifs...

While medical advances can and will prolong life (with whatever atendant problems that will create)and ameloriate suffering, the fountain of youth and eternal sexual prowess suggested in the article are just hazy vapor ware.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Waiting...

[Merovign]

Half-life 2 is delayed, Doom 3 is delayed, the new Skyline GT-R is put off 2 years, and now I have to wait 20 years for this cool pill?

I guess they're all trying to teach us delayed gratification.

And it will probably cost $1000 is 2004 dollars, or $12342 2025 dollars. Though the first public doses will probably be available only through a Pepsi sweepstakes.

Re:Waiting...

[Quattro Vezina]

Half-life 2 is delayed, Doom 3 is delayed, the new Skyline GT-R is put off 2 years, and now I have to wait 20 years for this cool pill?

Hey, the pill will still be out before Duke Nukem Forever is. As an added bonus, it'll help you live longer, so you may very well be alive when DNF is released thanks to this pill.

Great!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

All I need is some robot to pierce my cheek and then.......AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGH !!!!

I am Locutus of Borg. Resistance is futile!

Just need to last til 2025

[doormat]

And by then $1000 will be a pittance!

Re:Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is..

[forkspoon]

Do you have an economics degree? Malthus was shown to be wrong about his conjecture that population would be limited by available land mass...accoring to him we shouldn't even have been able to make it to 1 billion...

Can we really deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we really deal with a population that lives to be 150? 200?

I guess it depends on what those 200 years were like. Would the time be taken up at the old folk's home, or as worker with many more years of productivity? Would creativity rise to levels never before seen as individual minds had more years to refine and gain knowledge?

So Stop Reproducing!

[Xhad]

If stuff like this really causes overpopulation to be a problem, I would imagine people would start having fewer children.

At one time six or seven kids was normal, now more than two or three is rather unusual. If people start living for centuries, it's only a matter of time before 0-1 is the standard.

Re:So Stop Reproducing!

[ezzzD55J]

At one time six or seven kids was normal, now more than two or three is rather unusual. If people start living for centuries, it's only a matter of time before 0-1 is the standard.

don't forget that, presuming children are per 2 people, you need 2 children to not shrink your population..

Re:So Stop Reproducing!

[Xhad]

That's assuming a relatively constant rate of death.

Also, as people start living longer, the kind of people who keep having kids as long as they are physically able will have more kids overall. When you have bicentennial people having double-digit numbers of children, that will make up for the couples who have less than two kids.

Nice plot for a movie..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nano bots keeping bodies alive even if there's noone running the thing. Sounds like a research project of the Umbrella Corp.

What about...

[Tuxedo Jack]

If these things can use RFID or radio to transmit their signals out somewhere?

That's a very scary possibility. Can you imagine your health status being broadcast to someone left and right?

Re:Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is..

[HockeyPuck]

No i don't have a degree, but people now are living into their 80-90s yet social security still kicks in at 65.

What would happen if the avg person lived to 100-110 yet social security still kicked in at 65? You work for 45 yrs (assuming you start at 20), and then get 35yrs of social security?

Plus the more people the higher the demand for resources (food, gas, land/housing). Plus people tend to want to live on the fringe of society (suburbs..) rather than in cities so population density within the cities is low however the demand for resources is still high (more gas for the 40mile commute, more instructure spent to run gas/phone/electricity to the houses).

Reminds me of old-time Usenet discussions

[Wylfing]

I forget the names of the groups I used to read back in the day (back when tin was a hot new project), but I do recall the very lively life-extension threads (and other such wonderous topics as "What would we do as a society of immortals?"). A common prediction went like this:

If you can live until 2020, you will be able to live until 2040. And if you can live until 2040, you will be able to live forever.

THIS IS BAD!

[drayzel]

I am an expert on nanotechnology because I read Micheal Chrichtons book 'Prey'. They will swarm and then set us up the bomb!

Thanks to M.C. I am also an expert on genticaly recreated Disosaurs (Raptors are bad), Time Travel (Old things are bad), Alien Intelignce (Spherical things in the ocean are bad), Japanese business practices (Horny S&M loving Japanese guys are bad), and countless other cutting edge issues... all of which are BAD.

~Z

-LAUGH-

Re:THIS IS BAD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously ... if people can make nano-robots do good things, then they can also make nano-robots do bad things. What do we do to prevent nano-technology to fall in the hands of terrorists? Imagine a bad type of nano-robot that will replicate itself like a virus and will strike only months after it was set out.

Bodybuilding

[gumpish]

In case anyone is interested, the article does not discuss bodybuilding.

Re:Bodybuilding

[stateofmind]

In case anyone else is interested in bodybuilding, I highly recommend the parents link. ExRx is an exceptional site.

Can it?

[Anonymous Coward]

But can it make you grow four butts?

i'm suspicious

[strook]

from the article:

In fact, his Web site lists many developments that have surfaced since the 2002 publication of his book, including: Computing that has sped up a thousand fold.

Perhaps we should not believe a journalist who thinks computers are 1000 times faster than they were two years ago.

Re:i'm suspicious

[Yotsuya]

You did read the actual text describing this advance, did you not? He's talking not about personal computers, but about computer technologies.. In this case, the first steps done in opto computing. He didn't mention there was also quantum computing demonstrated.
Quantum computing has the potential to make all our current speed measuring methods completely obsolete, where optical computing is simply better (faster, potentially not as power hungry, etc...), quantum computing simply behaves in totally new ways, able to find solutions nearly instantaneously whatever the number of potential results.

If things keep going the way they are…

[Anonymous Coward]

...before long they'll be killing us off at the age of 21 and giving us feathered hairdos.

Re:Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is..

[krytron_switch]

Repeat after me...

Soylent Green is people

Re:Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is..

[ReyTFox]

OTOH, we've managed to get along pretty well when life expectancy went up by a huge factor during the 20th century.

Why? Because productivity's increased. That's how we were able to get social security in the first place, really. And we have a whole new set of technologies set to come out during the 21st century that will further improve production: biotech, nanotech, robotics...we might also finally get a moon colony or something.

Also, industrialized societies have generally tended to move below the level of population replacement(from 2.something children per family to under 2) as their economic fortunes improved. If the trend continues it may turn out that many people won't have children in future societies.

I believe that this - to some extent - shows that these problems are more imagined than real. Nothing is ever certain of course, but I think we have a good shot at coming out of this century with excellent prospects.

I'm skeptical of the predicted dates...

[Eric Smith]

I'm skeptical of the predicted dates because technological advances are usually either much later than predicted, or else show up completely unexpected. And since nanotech medical is expected...

Still, I hope they're right. I'm 40 now, and if I start taking better care of myself, I might actually make it to 2025.

My biggest health problem has been obesity, and I've managed to lose about 65 pounds since September 2003 on a low-carb diet. I've still got at least 50 lbs. to go, or 85 lbs. according to my doctor. He says for my height (6'0") I should weigh 185, but I weighed more than that when I was in high school and was in good condition.

Anyhow, if I can get down to a reasonable weight, and keep the pounds off, I think I'll have a much better chance of living long enough to take advantage of these nanotech advances.

Re:I'm skeptical of the predicted dates...

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, you're obese? I was once obese, okay? I have a solution, it's called controlled methamphetamine use.. sure, you become a tweek and ruin your body, but at least you get SKINNY! GETTING IT BUD GETTING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:I'm skeptical of the predicted dates...

[finkployd]

Remember, those "target weight for a given height" charts assume an "average" body. If you have a small frame and no muscle then they will read high. If you are perfectly healthy and have a muscular physique, you will appear to be "obese" on one of these charts.

Finkployd

20 Years From Now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Roland Piquepaille, Jr. writes "In this article from Backbone Magazine, Douglas Mulhall, Jr., author of 'Our Molecular Future Part 2' tells us about the future of nanomedicine. He thinks that medical diagnosis will be the first successful steps, involving nanorobots which will raise alerts when they detect pre-cancerous cells. And twenty years from now, researchers envision that nanomedicine will be a trillion dollar industry. Around 2045, you'll pay $4,000 a year for a nanopill that will extend your life by suppressing heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases. Other scientists say that nanotechnology will be used to build synthetic bone and tissue, an opinion shared by Scientific American, which warns that growing replacement organs is still at least another 10 to 20 years in front of us. More details and references are available in this overview focused on how nanomedicine is going to totally take over healthcare in the 21st century. [Additional note: Slashdot described Mulhall's Law of Disassembly last February.]"

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, PLEASE!!

[dmitrygr]

I would, but that is not on the list of moderation options.

Absolute fantasy.

[index72]

No freekin way.

skull gun

[Anonymous Coward]

The body building has already been mentioned, how long until I can get a skull gun?

*shrug*

[evil jesse]

Interesting, but usually when people say 'at least', they mean it in the most extreme sense, "atleast 10 years, at most a couple hundred". Nothing new, everyone is aware that this stuff is going to come along eventually, though some speculate famine, plague, world war three and the end of civilization before the unspoken uper limits of these guestimations. Ive taken this with 'at least' a grain of salt, I'd advise 'at least' some of you to follow suit. It is cool stuff, but it isn't news. Medicine benifits from all kinds of experimental science, but the science needs to be thoroughly understood before the snake oil is sold. Im not buying. I'll most likely die at around 80 years old despite all of the moore's law optimism.

the holy grail: eternal life

[maggern]

This industry will enable us build small robots that can be injected into our bloodstream. Together with our (future) understanding og genes and the whole body system, a tool has been created for manipulating DNA and monitor our body cells, which in effect may bring us very long lifes. This business won't stop before it has created a treatment for being\getting old. And that's great, and creates an incredible amount of possibilities, but also many challenges. I really hope that a such a treament comes along before I die. That said, I don't really want to live forever, maybe a few hundred years could be enough. ;-) My great grandfather lived until he was 99 years old, and he said that getting old is very boring. All your friends are dead, and you've done the same things a few hundred years before. However, getting old with a "young body" certainly must be more fun. :-) Hell, if my life seems dull and boring, maybe it will be a "cure" for that too. Let the doctors flush out some of my memory, so trips and experiences may seem "new" again. Naturally, the doctors can't delete too much memory, and thus creating an identity-problem. :-) Anyway, just a few thougths! :-)

Doesn't affect # of kids you have

[mec]

This technology doesn't affect (directly) how many kids you have, and has only a small effect on your chances of dying before having all the kids that you are going to have.

So it won't have much effect on population. There will be a one-time bump as the lifespan increase from, say, 70 to 100, but it's not like the 75-year-olds are having more kids.

Tell me, what do you think of immunizing children against common contagious diseases such as diptheria? Are you shuddering at the effects of that?

(And on the bright side, world population will peak out and level off about 2050).

Exercise AND diet AND pill

[mec]

I predict that any nano techniques will work better on people who are in better shape to begin with.

There's an interesting article about this...

[Jezzabella2]

over at www.staylocked.com

Tail

[cnf]

Whoa, I hope that in 10 years, this can grow me a tail!

Honestly, I'd love to have one of those functional ones, you can use to pick things up etc..

Or other things in the bedroom...

Let the tail games begin!

The future is now!

[mec]

A bunch of really hot, lazy, horny, well fed people have a good time? Sounds like heaven...

Compared to the mass of people in, say, the 17th century, we already are all of those things!

Hot: regular bathing and clean clothes every day
Lazy: I don't have to work 12 hours a day 6.5 days a week just wresting my food from the earth
Horny: Not sure about that compared to 300 years ago, but it seems like people have a lot more resources for sex now that their food, clothing, and shelter are much easier to provide
Well Fed: Pretty obvious
Having a good time: This is more subtle, I'd say most people in developed countries have lots more opportunity to pursue a good time; whether they actually succeed or not is up to them

Re:Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is..

[skasingularity]

Fsck that, people will get bored long before they live that long, and suicide rates will skyrocket. Or people will just stop ordering the pill when they are done with life. Seriously.

Also, theres a good chance that people will wait a lot longer to have kids if they live to be 200. And, if advances can grow replacement organs and the like, why can't they grow more food to feed the masses? Perhaps nanobots could turn people into plants, so you just soak up some rays and, BAM! There's your meal!

Ok, so that probably isn't going to happen, but if there are so many huge advances coming our way, *coughVapor-anyone?cough* whose to say we can't come up with ways to take care of the longer living people?

No fair damn it!

[pair-a-noyd]

" Around 2025, you'll pay $1,000 a year for a nanopill that will extend your life"

By then I'll be dead.. And the year after I die they will announce that they have unlocked the secret to immortality...

Son of a bitch...........

As I have always maintained...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they will invent immortality the day after I die.

Re:Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is..

[forkspoon]

Obviously changes would have to be made to the system. If people can work longer, they will be compelled to. What exactly is your point now that you know that Malthus was incorrect?

The Big Problem.

[MadMacSkillz]

The big problem with anything in the future that makes us twice as smart, fast, strong, good looking, whatever, is that rich people will be able to afford it and poor people won't. If we're not careful, 100 years from now we'll be divided into a society of super humans and, well, the rest of us grunts, who will be delegated to God knows what unsavory tasks. I think our only hope would be... gulp... capitalism. Some bright business suit types saying, "Hey, if we could mass manufacture this cheaply, we could sell it to EVERYONE!" Of course, that still wouldn't solve the problem for extremely poor nations. Will THEY end up being the grunts doing the manual labor for piss poor wages? Oh... that's right... they already are doing that, making us sneakers and whatnot. I'm not crazy about where this is all headed. Sadly, nobody asked me...

Open Source?

[jshindl]

Will all of these nano-pills be open source? :P

delusional dreamers

[plastic.person]

"Around 2025, you'll pay $1,000 a year for a nanopill that will extend your life by suppressing heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases. "

Yea right, and in 1950 it was predicted that we'd have several human colonies on the Moon by 1970. Also, a commercial nuclear fussion reactor was just ten years away...

Scary scary consequences...

[LiberalApplication]

And your central nervous system, with its pattern of connections being your personality, will not be that easy to maintain. You could end up more demented than Ronald Reagan but still looking like J Lo

Imagine that, a scenario where people are physically healthy and youthful well into their late one-hundred-eighties. Who can say what psychological state such people would be in? If that state isn't a good one, what would we do with such people? Allow them to continue on indefinitely, youth and health frozen, as their mental degradation progresses?

We might even have to start euthanizing people, which would then necessitate a standard for determining which people are no longer fit for participation in society...

Re:Scary scary consequences...

[ACPosterChild]

Hmm, a bunch of dim-witted good-looking people basically doing nothing but drooling, having sex with eachother, and taking up resources. I didn't know the Hyundai Elantra GTs came with a De'Lorean Time Machine option. I thought I was going out to a local bar last weekend, but apparently I was shot 100 years into the future!

Let's start with the basics

[TangLiSha]

I agree that it is very important to work on creating artificial organs, but wouldn't it make more sense to start with blood? We seem to have a constant shortage of blood, and very few people donate on a regular basis.

I am O- and give blood components every two weeks, knowing full well that if I should ever have a need for blood there is a good chance that none will be available for me.

We spend a lot of time and money collecting blood, and I think that an artificial source would end up being cheaper and safer in the long run. You don't have to test it for disease, and it can be custom made for the person that needs it.

Re:Let's start with the basics

[laosland]

"I agree that it is very important to work on creating artificial organs, but wouldn't it make more sense to start with blood? We seem to have a constant shortage of blood, and very few people donate on a regular basis. "

You mean like this? Artficial Blood."

$1000 a year in 2025?

[Uma Thurman]

That's going to be like 50 cents today! Cheap.

A simpler way

[PsiPsiStar]

Try grape seed extrat. It contains a lipase inhibitor which prevents your body from digesting all the fat you eat. Caloric restriction, coupled with proper nutrition, is the one proven way to extend lifespan and prevent aging in almost all creatures, including people.

What about medical ethics?

[WindowLicker916]

Have any of these scientest stopped to think of the impact this kind of technology would have on society and the world on whole? If everyone lived to be 100 just imagine the consequences!! Increased pollution, social security _would_ go bankrupt, unemployment could go up (since peopel would retire later), etc. I think this line of sciene is highly unethical and could have diare consequences for everyone. What do you think?

Re:What about medical ethics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think going from 20 to 80 hasn't hurt us any. What's another 20 years on the average lifetime?

McDonalds For All

[BunnyClaws]

Now I can continue to Super Size my fries and not worry about future health problems.

Re:Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is..

[Daetrin]

Well guess what, Malthus was wrong. Real life examples show that in the absense of some kind of social motivating force, when people become prosperous they stop having as many kids. This is where the stereotype of the farm family with a dozen kids vs. the suburban "nuclear family" of two parents and two kids comes from.

When underdeveloped nations first become prosperous there's a generation or two of lag before the birth rate drops, but currently many industrial nations are actually experiencing negative population growth when considered just in terms of births and deaths (ie, discounting imigration.) Australia is even paying people to have kids just to get back to parity.

The biggest problem with the current demographics is the preponderence of non-productive old people. A pill that allowed people to be healthy and productive throughout their lives would be the perfect solution to this. The

Yarf!

[Anonymous Coward]

furry, eh?

Oh great...

[Eric Damron]

"round 2025, you'll pay $1,000 a year for a nanopill that will extend your life by suppressing heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases."

The Borg thought it was a good idea at the time too...

Snake Oil

[Anonymous Coward]

"Around 2025, you'll pay $1,000 a year for a nanopill that will extend your life by suppressing heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases."

How about just eating right and excercising?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Speaking of nanobots and healing...

[gui_tarzan2000]

Years ago I watched a movie with Richard Thomas (John Boy Walton) as a scientist that discovered these "nanobots" as I recall that were injected into the body that would heal diseases. The problem was that they were so smart that they would also fix "deficiencies" in the human body like growing two eyes on the back of his head so he could see what was behind him. Freaky movie, but apparently way ahead of it's time.

Re:Speaking of nanobots and healing...

[spiro_killglance]

That wasn't a movie, that was the "Outer Limits" series, the modern remake. Classic stuff. BTW most
of the stories were (just like the orginal), taken
from Sci-fi short stories, which was why they
were so good.

Do not adjust you set. We control the vertical,
the horizontal.

Dear Douglas Mulhall

[LaCosaNostradamus]

$1K/pill? You must be on drugs yourself if you think that it will be that cheap.

In 2025, a life-extension pill will cost about 30% of the gross yearly median income. In 2004 dollars, this will probably mean about $10K per pill.

Massive insurance involvement will be required to bring this horribly expensive pill to the people who live in the bottom 3 quintiles ... which will only expand their overall poorness given the horrendous premiums that will result. The bottom quintile will probably see the $1K/yr you envision ... as an increase in their health insurance payments.

The increasingly fucked-up IP laws will ensure that this magic pill will have a very limited production. By "limited" I mean in distribution-from-production. There will be no real shortage ... they're only pills, even nano-constructed, and will be made by the millions. But those millions will sit in guarded warehouses. And they will only be shipped to end consumers only after the proper blizzard of forms and payments.

"Health care" is so expensive today since it brings good promise of stopping the past incurables ... people will pay anything for another few years of life, so their lack of restraint drives up the price. From that, I posit that the greater the promise of the fix, the greater desperation of the demand for it.

You shouldn't continue the mistake of making tech predictions in a political or socioeconomic vacuum.

I'll believe it when I see it

[NonSequor]

I'm not convinced that the processing power neccessary for nanobots to achieve such feats can be fit into such a small package. As some past Slashdot stories have shown, there are physical limits on storage density and computational power. To put it simply, a smaller system has fewer possible states than a larger system.

One way around this would be to have only enough computing power in each nanobot to receive and act on signals from a computer. This might make it possible for nanobots to do more complex work, but it will be extremely difficult to design such a system.

You also have to consider that a nanobot will have limited sensors. Each nanobot will basically have to feel it's way around in the dark. How can the nanobot distinguish between cholesterol that is clogging an artery and cholesterol that forms a cell wall?

Perhaps future generations will be able to tackle these problems, but 2025 is absurdly, laughably, obscenely optimistic. We don't even have prototypes of any sort of nanobot and this guy thinks we'll be injecting them into humans in 20 years? There are a lot of barriers in place and perhaps some of them will be overcome, but I don't see how we can get past all of them in 20 years.

Vegan cats are perfectly healthy

[adminstring]

There are seven happy, healthy vegan cats in my house, from 1 to 19 years old. They eat Evolution vegan cat food, which is the best cat food available. Slaughterhouse waste adds nothing to your cat's diet. Evolution, like most other cat foods, contains synthetic taurine; it's that lack of taurine that would make a purely vegetable diet unhealthy for cats. Taurine supplement powder is also available (as "vegecat") for those who make their own cat food. I get Evolution from www.petfoodshop.com or www.vegancats.com, which also carries Vegecat. BTW, until nanomachines change the game (if they do,) a healthy vegan diet and exercise will still help humans such as yourself live longer and happier... Heart disease and cancer are both linked to eating animal products. www.pcrm.org has more info on this. I'm betting my health on proven science, not science fiction.

Re:Vegan cats are perfectly healthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a truly vegan diet is posible, and has been shown to be extremely healthy. But to do it right is very difficult and expensive.

Besides, there's no point to living longer if you can't live, Bring on the Steak!

Anybody else wonder if...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the nanobots will get stuck in your heart's veins and cause the heart attack it's supposed to prevent? =P

Malthus schmalthus

[Kap'n Koflach]

Malthus's hypothesis implied that actual population always has a tendency to push above the food supply. Because of this tendency, any attempt to ameliorate the condition of the lower classes by increasing their incomes or improving agricultural productivity would be fruitless, as the extra means of subsistence would be completely absorbed by an induced boost in population.

Malthus published "An essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798 and his predictions just haven't panned out. As countries industrialise their population increases significantly but then levels out or even becomes negative - to the extent that some western countries (Japan and Italy are good examples) have aging and stagnating populations. Population growth is still massive in the third world in terms of sheer numbers, but even there the birth rates aren't increasing as fast as Malthus predicted. There simply isn't the need to have large families to make sure that at least some kids survive to carry on with the farm.

The actual picture is very complicated. One view is that, barring disasters, the world will end up with a large but 'stable' population, the vast majority of which lives in what we would now call the developing world. Most people wouldn't have a particularly brilliant quality of life, and the worlds ecosystems would be dominated by food production. But this assumes that the developing world can create the social and other systems required to ensure stabilty, and that global civilisation doesn't become 'brittle' with respect to resources, etc.

There's no excuse not to work out....

[PGillingwater]

I'm amazed at the whiners in this thread who are willing to wait for a magic pill that might help them grow muscles and lose fat, when everything you need is available now. There are plenty of sources of information on the Internet, none of which you need to pay for, about how to hack your metabolism.

It's quite simple. Work out six times a week, alternating three days of heavy weights (high mass, low reps) for max. 45 minutes, with three days of high intensity aerobics (20 mins at 90% of Maximum Heart Rate). On the seventh day, rest. Work out at least two hours after eating (to ensure your glycerides in the blood are at their lowest), ideally in the morning before breakfast, which should be high in protein.

Eat six small meals a day (space them out at two hour intervals.) Relax your eating restrictions on your rest day (this is when you can treat yourself -- but note your body's reaction to whatever you eat.) Monitor your caloric intake -- don't starve yourself, because you need to keep a good level of protein and vitamin input to build muscle.

This worked for me. I'm in my mid-forties, and managed to lose 25 pounds (11 kg), and get the body fat level down to 15%. I walk around 45 km per week on top of this exercise program, and have never felt better. I leg-press 100 kg, and do curls with 50 kg, with good technique.

The bottom line -- whatever you're doing now, you can improve. Just find the time, and DO IT.

Outer Limits

[mgcsinc]

There's an episode of the Outer Limits where they try something similar to this, and the guy ends up growing gills and eyes on the back of his head as a result of the robots trying to make him better.

and if Gates were a christian... 144k

[waspleg]

i know his wife is but rumor has it he had to be forced into making his billion dollar non-profit business just as cut-throat as M$

Well it does screw it up.

[RedLaggedTeut]

While the term "screw up natural selection" is not very accurate (cf. "non-nuclear weapons"), what happens is that evolution and improvement for our species will be halted, but only until we embrace genetic engineering and machine intelligence.

As scary and immoral this might seem today, this is what must happen when medicine approaches perfection.

Actually evolution does not equal improvement, since unused facilities deteriorate, but lets just pretend for ourselves that it does mean improvement.

$1000/year

[markwusinich]

Bah! More like $150,000/year.
There is no patented medicine that you can get a year's supply for $1000. Consider that their market will be everyone, not just those that suffer from some existing condition and the price will be higher than any other.

Regrowing body parts?

[Jack Schitt]

This brings to mind images of soldiers missing limbs, and little kids playing with firecrackers.

So little Tommy lost a couple fingers during an unfortunate accident with that M-80? Not to worry! The Nanos that he received as part of his booster supplement years ago will automatically regenerate the missing fingers in a couple weeks.

This conjures up images of fingers laying on the ground that may also be trying to rebuild the parts of the body that are missing from the fingers in much the same way that a plant can be reproduced by planting pieces of the plant (i.e. cloning)

Here's an interesting sci-fi idea for one of those "Demolition Man" style futures when sex is outlawed: reproduction via mitosis. Some nanos are injected and the person quite literally splits into two separate individuals.

Just some weird outside-the-box ideas for you to think about.

BTW, I am of the mind that there is no God and as such, I believe that cloning should be allowed and that people who clone others -- or parts thereof -- are not playing God. Cloning should be allowed, but only as long as some form of population control is also authorized.

On second thought, maybe cloning isn't such a great idea. There are too many damn people as it is. Why find new and interesting ways to create more?
That and I am personally against population control.

--
In all likelihood, I am probably at least partially inebriated during this particular post.