Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nano Body Building

Posted by michael on from the kidneys-on-tap dept.

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.]"

20 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. yes but will it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    .. enlarge my penis?

    1. Re:yes but will it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      no, but it can make your hand smaller.

  2. Gotta love the 21th Century by Graftweed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Gotta love the 21th Century by InternationalCow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      --
      ----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
    2. Re:Gotta love the 21th Century by Jerf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. 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 TykeClone · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. Re:Social Problems? by Pyromage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Social Problems? by augmenter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      There is no good and bad. There is only cause and effect.
  4. anatomynauts... by beeplet · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  5. it's coming by axonal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Borg Technology
    Coming to a stardeck near you.

  6. 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.
  7. you love the guessing game by sjwaste · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Proprietary Nano? by JRSiebz · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  9. Toxitity issue by UrgleHoth · · Score: 4, Informative

    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."
  10. 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!
  11. Great, like traffic isn't bad enough as it is... by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

  12. Are we ready for Immortality? by Moosifer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Are we ready for Immortality? by strook · · Score: 4, Funny
      No amount of water conservation will enable us to sustain global populations of 20 billion people.

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

      --

      "TV is great! Every New Year's I make a resolution to watch more TV." - Ann Coulter

  13. Re:Waiting... by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 4, Funny

    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