Slashdot Mirror


Engineered Enhancers Closer Than You Think

Roland Piquepaille writes "Happy 2035! Thirty years from now, we'll use bionic eyes giving us 'zoom vision' for faster reactions. Nanobots injected in our bloodstream will complement our immune system. Artificial muscles built with electroactive polymers will help us to be stronger and faster. So you think it's science fiction? Not at all. You'll see that some people are so convinced that this kind of human enhancements will happen that they predict than in a few decades, all sporting events 'will be split up to accommodate enhanced and unenhanced athletes.'"

29 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. Medical needs by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps in thirty years we could obtain some degree of enhancement for our eyes that would be optically based. However, a more pressing (and needed) benefit will be a cure or fix for folks with vision loss. "Zoom lenses" and such could relatively easily be accomplished with bionically enhanced optics, but the real trick is going to be designing and implementing the hardware/wetware interface and creating true bionic retinas. Bionic implants for retinal degenerations as currently implemented are not going to work for a variety of reasons (read my doctoral dissertation to find out why), but there are other approaches that can be taken or modifications that will be successful (part of my current work). Also alternative ways of implementing the interface cortically will likely have some success (not my work, but it is of my colleagues). Artificial retinas are going to be harder than artificial cochleas for the hearing impaired or cortical control of motor functions which are both applications that are having some success currently. The retina is a much more complex tissue with (in our eyes) 55-60 different classes of neurons all wired together in a precise manner to generate proper signals for image interpretability. As an interesting aside, I have said this before on Slashdot, but human eyes are pretty pathetic in terms of their sophistication. Birds, fish and many reptiles have much more sophisticated retinas that perceive what we would term a multi-spectral visual world. A visual scene much richer that the simple three-space world we currently see.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Medical needs by cghancock01 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does anybody remember the Discovery Channel show "Beyond 2000?" Does anybody have a flying car?

    2. Re:Medical needs by Jerf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Birds, fish and many reptiles have much more sophisticated retinas that perceive what we would term a multi-spectral visual world.

      We'd call it "multispectrum" because we don't see there. But we see "multispectrum" too... otherwise what do you call red, green, and blue? The curves for those receptors don't completely overlap.

      Of course human eyes aren't a proper superset of every eye's capability in the world. There isn't room in one eye for that, and if you did jam it all in you'd be bitching about our crappy resolution! But they are quite good for what they do, and the brain behind them is unsurpassed, if you consider seeing not just as raw pixel collection but as understanding the world. Nobody else has a visual system that can read.

      Artificial eyes will be cool but it's going to be hard to jam any more info down the optic nerve and through the visual system that we already are unless we do a full brain replacement.

    3. Re:Medical needs by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

      Would you care to define how you are using the term "dimension" here? Has string theory revealed that turtles see in seven dimensions?

      No, read up on image math. There is an extensive literature with respect to color vision and color perception. I seem to remember a pretty good website talking about image math and mathematical dimensionality with respect to a great program NIH Image, nee Image J.

      Specifically with respect to turtles, they have a number of completely separate image processing channels over and above primate vision whereas we (humans) are limited to three separate channels with one channel piggybacking upon another channel. In fact, one way turtles do this is by placing little oil droplets on the end of their photoreceptors that function as additional spectral filters.

      You're either way, way, way beyond me or you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

      No offense intended, but I do suspect the former.

      Again, what's your point? Human eyes are a subset of the set of every eye's capability? No kidding.

      Human eyes are not a subset of every eyes capability. There are eyes for instance that are organized very differently from ours. For example, take a look at the morphology of the octopus eye. Very interesting and effective design and excellent optics, but the octopus retina in completely inverted with respect to the mammalian retina.

      I'm also disturbed by your claim that other eyes have been evolving for "longer"....

      Well, go back and look at a timeline of evolution. There are organisms whose lineage is much older than the human lineage. Also around the Jurassic period, there was a point at which the common mammalian ancestor went underground and mammalians "lost" their eyes. When they developed again, they did so by co-opting certain visual circuitry and piggybacking the rod pathway on top of the cone pathway. Thus, human eyes (retinas) are evolutionarily "younger" than other retinas in for example zebrafish or amphibians like the salamander or turtle. (did you also know that those organisms can fix their retinas when damaged even though they are more complex than ours?).

      which is that improvements aren't free once your reach (near) optimality.

      Again, you are making the assumption that human eyes have been optimized to the best they can possibly be. That is an error of thinking because while some things are truly impressive, they are not completely optimal.

      This is assuming you don't throw the whole thing out and start anew with inorganic technology, which can probably be made vastly superior with work

      Actually, biological photoreceptors are capable of responding to a single photon of light. This is something that inorganic technologies have so far not been able to duplicate without a not insignificant array of hardware that takes up much more space and arguably is not as sensitive or precise as biological photoreceptors.

      I hear this line a lot, usually supported by "look, there's this one thing that a dolphin can do as well as a human", completely ignoring the fact that we do much, much, much more than "one thing" well.

      You are thinking from truly a egocentric (human centric) viewpoint and not a scientific standpoint. There are capabilities that other organisms have that we are just learning about. Dolphins ability to process information in ultrasound, map their world and even see through things using ultrasound. Elephants communicating in infrasound is another thing that comes to mind.

      Humans aren't the best at everything universally, but there is nothing on this planet that even comes close for general purpose cognition.

      Use specific language and you will make more sense. Say something like "humans are capable of logical thought and applying reason and strategy to problem solving to greater degree than other known organisms" and I will agree.

      I refe

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  2. Almost a reality by SIGALRM · · Score: 5, Interesting
    we'll use bionic eyes giving us 'zoom vision' for faster reactions
    Indeed many blind or vision-impaired people have hope today from nanotechnology like this. Scientists are experimenting with thin, photosensitive ceramic films that respond to light much as rods and cones do. Arrays of such films could be implanted in human eyes to restore lost vision.
    --
    Sigs cause cancer.
    1. Re:Almost a reality by BWJones · · Score: 3, Informative

      There was the Wired article and Slashdot articles about the Wired article talking about a gentleman who has used a system set up by William Dobelle. This system uses a grid of electrodes on the surface of the cortex that generates phosphenes or perceptual points of light. What is not accomplished here is any real correlation with the points of light and the grid of stimulating electrodes. Furthermore, the phosphenes are not consistent among many other problems and potential problems with the Dobelle system. Also, it should be noted that William Dobelle was not granted permission to use this system in the United States and thus had to move to Portugal where he has these systems implanted in patients and he has not been entirely honest with his patients and what they can expect from these systems. Finally, the approach with surface mount electrodes requires significantly higher current to stimulate the cortex (think complications of epilepsy, and his patients have experienced seizures) than with other systems like Richard Normann's system which uses an implantable electrode array.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  3. I hate Slashdot so much...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's like Jerry Springer for geeks. Please kill me.

  4. Already split... by rainman_bc · · Score: 4, Funny

    , all sporting events 'will be split up to accommodate enhanced and unenhanced athletes.'"

    Isn't that the difference between pro and amateur?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  5. Steve Austin. Astronaut. A man barely alive. by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better ... stronger ... faster.
    /obligatory

  6. The real question.... by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In thirty years, will Roland Piquepaille still be spamming Slashdot?

    Cheers,

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    1. Re:The real question.... by Compulawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wish I could mod this +10,000 - Says what needed to be said.

      --

      Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

  7. Pilots by Nine+Tenths+of+The+W · · Score: 3, Funny

    What would this mean for pilots, given the strict perfect vision/no eye damage requirements they have?

    And, more importantly, when can I get razor blades that shoot out from under my fingernails?

    --
    Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
  8. We won't have a choice by omnirealm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nanobots injected in our bloodstream will complement our immune system.



    Actually, I do not think we will have a choice in the matter on this one. Before too long, there will be hostile (or just poorly designed and self-replicating) nanobots that will kill us when they get into our bodies. We will need some sort of immediate defense against this new threat; if anything, an outbreak caused by a malicious type of nanobot will spurn the development of the nanobot that complements our immune system and defends against the malicious nanobot. This sort of thing has long been addressed in science fiction novels, but it seems like something that is closer than we might imagine.

    --
    An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
  9. The Two I'm Looking Forward to are by ewanrg · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Personally, the two enhancements I'm looking forward to are:

    1) Augmented memory. No more forgetting names or passwords. Though it does add some real interesting issues for DRM (can you force me to forget a movie after remembering it X times)

    2) Direct connect to the net - the ability to check GPS to figure out what I might be looking at, or the apocryphal doing google searches when asked a question would be very useful.

    Just my .02 worth...

    ---

    It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a blog

    1. Re:The Two I'm Looking Forward to are by ithicine · · Score: 3, Informative

      1) Augmented memory. No more forgetting names or passwords. Though it does add some real interesting issues for DRM (can you force me to forget a movie after remembering it X times)

      I find choline and piracetam works remarkably well for this purpose. At higher dosages, I find my memory can be enhanced to the point of being photographic; furthermore, it leaves my mind unnaturally limber and quick. The effects remind me of what I like best about dextroamphetamine (or even low dose methamphetamine), minus the body load, addiction potential, and obvious "speedy" effect.

      It's classed as a nootropic drug, and fits the bill perfectly.

  10. It's not a bug, it's a feature by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As an interesting aside, I have said this before on Slashdot, but human eyes are pretty pathetic in terms of their sophistication. Birds, fish and many reptiles have much more sophisticated retinas that perceive what we would term a multi-spectral visual world. A visual scene much richer that the simple three-space world we currently see.

    Evolution gives organisms the tools they need to survive, not necessarily what those organsims might put down on their wish lists. The ability to sense the world in such detail is much more important to the survival of those creatures than it is for human beings. This is a feature, not a bug. Since this is slashdot, I'm going to assume that you are very familiar with the epsiode in Star Trek where Kirk outmaneuvers aliens with vastly superior intellect and technology. How does he do it? In order to operate the Enterprise, these creatures had to fit themselves into human bodies which have senses that are much more hightened than those of their normal form. Kirk simply overloads their senses to the point that they can't think straight. Just yesterday we had an article here on slashdot about how people are having trouble dealing with the flood of new information available to them. Be thankful that our eyes are more limited than those of birds, fish, and their ilk. Our brains are already having trouble keeping up with the world around us. The day we start seeing in the IR and UV parts of the spectrum, that'll be all the more for us to process on a second-by-second basis.

    Good luck with the research. I'm gratified to know that at least someone thinks that this technology should be used first to assist those who are disabled and then used to give super-powers to the rich. All too often medical research caters to stupid things like baldness cures instead of focusing on cures of cancer and Alzheimer's.

    GMD

    1. Re:It's not a bug, it's a feature by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Insightful
      the sensory overload of modern life is precisely what causes vision loss.

      It is? Is there evidence of that, or are you just guessing?

    2. Re:It's not a bug, it's a feature by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, and whats ironic is that the sensory overload of modern life is precisely what causes vision loss.

      Nonsense. And why yes, I am a vision scientist.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    3. Re:It's not a bug, it's a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, and whats ironic is that the sensory overload of modern life is precisely what causes vision loss.

      Actually, it's masturbation that does it.

  11. "science" + "fiction" by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thirty years from now, we'll use bionic eyes [...] science fiction? Not at all.

    When you're making predictions about the future, hypothetical applications of current scientific research, you are making science fiction!

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  12. ignorance of underlying biology by lukesl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I feel like I see articles like this all the time, and the underlying current is one of thinking that there are all these engineering breakthroughs that will make things that operate better than the native biological system. Engineers often tend to think this way, not unlike the carpenter who thinks the moon is made of wood. As a biologist, I may be somewhat guilty of the opposite bias, but the truth of the matter is that engineers have seldom been able to make materials and machines that operate as well as their biological counterparts. For example, artificial joints and teeth are all vastly inferior to their biological counterparts, and they will be for a while yet.

    My point is that human enhancement will occur, but this article grossly underestimates the role molecular biology will have in the near future. For example, to make soldiers with more endurance, you could try replacing their blood with an artificial substitute, or you could give them recombinant erythropoeitin to increase their red blood cell count. The EPO injections are trivial (ask professional bicyclists), but after years and years of research, we still don't have an acceptable artificial blood substitute.

    As far as artificial muscles go...that is just ridiculous. To think that in 30 years we will be implanting stuff like that into peoples' bodies. We will be growing muscle tissue in vats and implanting long before we deal with artifical stuff. However, first we will be using relatively simple methods to locally control muscle growth (like small molecule inhibitors of receptors for hormones that inhibit muscle growth, etc.) That alone will be huge.

    I think the real lack of conceptual understanding has to do with the evolutionary perspective. Basically, humans are incredibly good at doing things that humans have to do in the wild, and the only easy enhancements that we can make are "enhancements" that actually decrease our fitness from the hunter-gatherer perspective. For example, stronger muscles require a huge food intake, so they're selected against. In this day and age, that's easy to get around, with steroids or other technologies. It's easy to increase endurance with EPO injections, but there are obvious problems (e.g. death) associated with that as well. People seem to think that it will be as easy to improve cognitive abilities or immune system function, but that's just wrong. Our brains and immune systems already operate pretty much at their optimum, and claims that we could simply inject "nanobots" that improve the function of either are ridiculously ignorant.

    1. Re:ignorance of underlying biology by MiLK_MD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Decrease in fitness is relative to the enviroment. An organism that my be fit in one niche may be completely unsuited to survive in another. Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution; they are simply well suited to living in temperate climates on a planet with Earthlike qualities. Would humans survive "as is" on Mars? No. Humans for example do not have protective fur to walk with aplomb unassisted in arctic enviroments nor large lung capacities and high oxygen carrying capacities to plumb the depths of the ocean. I like to think of enhancements as adjuncts or logical extensions of adaptive responses. Enhancements would provide humans with the ability to explore heretofore difficult or unreachable places. And what is so ridiculous about artificial muscles? Human muscle has a finite upper bound with regards to strength vs. mass ratio. Certainly not the strongest nor most efficient stuff around. Could we not replace human muscle with a more efficient compound? (Some of my research deals with exactly this issue.) Stronger muscles do not necessarily imply greater energy intake: that can be achieved by increasing efficency, of which the human muscle is not a perfect example (think exothermia). And to state that our bodies already operate at their optimum, again there is the caveat that optimum is dependent on the environment and the task at hand. Enhancement in regards to recall/attention ability for example, is not only possible, but present (methylphenidate for example has been shown to increase cognitive function for "normal" people). Certainly there is room for "improvement." And there is also the issue of helping those that are diseased or disabled with respect to the norm. In this case can one not redefine enhancement as "repair?" As an aside, where is the differentiation between "nanobots" and "molecular biology." Targeted molecules, receptor specific proteins, cell mediated hormones..."nanobots!" they are simply points on a continuum.

  13. Here's another prediction by Alceste · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In thirty years slashdot will still be enamored with poorly researched, jargon infused, poorly written future-bation.

  14. Huh? by Gyan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You'll see that some people are so convinced that this kind of human enhancements will happen that they predict than in a few decades, all sporting events 'will be split up to accommodate enhanced and unenhanced athletes.'"

    What's the difference between enhanced and unenhanced?

    Isn't the athlete from a rich country with well-equipped training facilities, tailored nutrition and good trainers already an enhanced athlete compared to an athlete from some small 3rd world country?

    This dichotomy to what constitutes enhancement and what doesn't smacks of a medieval perspective of the human condition.

  15. What? by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 3, Informative
    So you think it's science fiction? Not at all. You'll see that some people are so convinced that this kind of human enhancements will happen...

    I can go down to the local crystal shop as well and find people that are convinced the unicorns and fey folk are coming back - this doesn't make it any less fictitious.

    Sadly, in this world, wishing don't make it so.

    YLFI
    --
    One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  16. If this is for real … by Compact+Dick · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... I will need a new handle.

  17. Where's my flying car? by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 3, Funny
    I want my goddamned flying car. It's been promised for fifty years now. Stuff your nanotech, bases on Mars, and robotic maids:

    WHERE'S MY GODDAMNED FLYING CAR???

  18. Re:2010.. No more V1agr4 by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Your subject line might be more appropriate than you think. I am actually concerned about the use of Viagra, because it is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor.......If you read about how photoreceptors work, phosphodiesterase does have a role in the transduction of vision and there is overlap with the activity of Viagra with the phosphodiesterase subtypes found in photoreceptors. Are we setting a bunch of folks up for vision deficits down the road a few years?

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  19. Re:But at what point do you lose your humanity? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We've had folks 3-4 times stronger than other folks for generations and nobody asked whether one or the other might not be human... okay so maybe they have, but they shouldn't have.

    The questions for whether someone is human include; can they interbreed with humans? Are they sentinent? Are they responsible to themselves and a threat to others. If so, they should be legally and biologically be considered humans. Driving a car doesn't make you less human. Having an artificial heart doesn't make you less human. Having a bionic adaptation shouldn't either.

    If you're going to exclude someone from the category of human you should have a functional moral, ethical, legal or biological reason for doing so, and your categorical exclusion would only be as broad as your reason was.

    My question (borrowed from the X-Men) is; when should enhanced abilities be considered weapons or threats, in the same class as firearms or knives? Do you not let certain people into an area because they're unusually strong or capable?

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.