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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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."

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: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?

[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.

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".

$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...

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: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: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).

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: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?

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.

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?