Slashdot Mirror


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.]"

16 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Social Problems? by ajiva · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Social Problems? by KRYnosemg33 · · Score: 1, Interesting
      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? :)

    2. Re:Social Problems? by Dimensio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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".

    3. Re:Social Problems? by BerntB · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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. :-)

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  2. life in the future by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
    1. Re:life in the future by Tiro · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

  3. You're forgetting the essential by vlad_petric · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    --

    The Raven

  4. Scary. by Exiler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Banaaaana!
  5. And what about athletics? by ezraekman · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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...

  6. Hairloss by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  7. Reminds me of old-time Usenet discussions by Wylfing · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
  8. Re:you love the guessing game by Black_Logic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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. :) )

    --
    Ansi's and stupid tricks!
  9. I'm skeptical of the predicted dates... by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

  10. The future is now! by mec · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  11. The Big Problem. by MadMacSkillz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

    --
    Music - www.richardmac.com
  12. Scary scary consequences... by LiberalApplication · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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...