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.]"
.. enlarge my penis?
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!
Setec Astronomy
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.
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.
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?
:P
Seriously, if you're going to make up words, at least spell them correctly.
my flying car? Can I get a discount if I get them both together? I'll pay another $500 if you throw in some cold-fusion!
Wake me when they can demo the stuff.
Borg Technology
Coming to a stardeck near you.
Right now I am eating pizza. I don't exercise enough and I am too fat, and at this rate I will die of heart disease by about age 38. I'm also drinking coke.
So if in the future I could eat anything I wanted, never exercise, and still have perfect nutrition and physique... what will become of the world?
A bunch of really hot, lazy, horny, well fed people having a good time? Sounds like heaven...
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Don't we all? When a technology barely gets underway, everyone pours out their guesses as to how far it will be in 20 years. Remember Conan doing those "in the year 2000" sketches? I swear back in the 50's people thought we'd have flying cars by now!
Like any technology, the research dollars will probably go towards those projects with the highest expected returns. I might be a cynic, but rather than curing a disease, I'll bet we'll find a new flood of cosmetic upgrades.
Let's start a petition now for the software in the 'nano-bots' be open source. I don't need all of the security and stability flaws of M$ with the coding genius of Diebold operating running around in my bloodstream.
:-P haha
And they'll never catch on at all unless they're low carb
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.
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
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!
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...
My next comment will be ready soon, but moderators can beat the rush and mod it up early.
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...
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...
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.
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.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
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).
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
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-
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
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