Slashdot Mirror
In France, a Second Patient Receives Permanent Artificial Heart
Jason Koebler (3528235) writes One of the most important goals of transhumanist medicine—possessing a perfectly healthy heart—has so far remained elusive. This week, we came a step closer when for the second time ever, a French company implanted a permanent artificial heart in a patient. More than just pumping blood, future artificial hearts will bring numerous other advantages with them. They will have computer chips and wi-fi capacity built into them. We'll control our hearts with our smart phones, tuning down its pumping capacity when we want to sleep, or tuning it up when we want to run marathons. The patient who received the first of these hearts, though he survived for 76 days, died after the heart "stopped after a short circuit, although the exact reasons behind the death were still unknown."
With wifi/bluetooth capability I feel like there's not anything that could possibly go wrong. It will be important to have it connect to the cloud in order to retrieve heart rate profiles for the day.
If the artificial heart stops, would that count as a "Blue Face of Death"?
I don't have any problems if it was broadcasting data, but if it's a 2-way communication (at layer 1) then they can fuck right off.
If you want to communicate, plug something in (or use near-field etc)
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I strongly believe that in the not too distant future the number 1 thing that people will wonder why we were so dumb as to not notice it was a horrible idea was having every goddamn thing connected and communicating.
ROM people. ROM!!! (the second ROM was written in allcaps for emphasis)
You can't remotely exploit a device without a network or public interface.
We're so obsessed with connectivity and networks these days that we are blinded to the negatives of all this connectivity - thinking they are just problems of the system to be resolved rather than inherent aspects of the system which can not be gotten rid of.
Alrighty rant(off);
v Now since, like you, I love the internet and connected thingymabobs somebody please reply and give some really good counterarguments against my thinking that IP addresses+Organs is a bad idea.
From the article:
"French artificial heart maker Carmat says it will not perform another human implant until it has determined the cause of death of the first patient fitted with the device."
Six months later: Implanting a new heart, despite still not knowing what happened the first time."
Permanence has a pretty specific meaning here. It says nothing of duration, only that it's the last.
Getting a permanent heart that lasts 76 days is not nearly as enticing as getting a temporary heart that lasts 2 years.
"Have you tried turning it off and back on again?"
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If you want to communicate, plug something in (or use near-field etc)
NFC is a misnomer.
With a sensitive enough receiver, you don't need to be "near" a NFC device to hear it talking.
With a large enough magnetic field, you don't need to be "near" a NFC device to get it talking.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
We (4chan) will control our hearts with our smart phones, tuning down its pumping capacity when we want to sleep (for weeks or months at a time, or randomly every 19 seconds), or tuning it up when we want to run marathons (or attend a funeral, or fix a sandwich, or enter a bathroom)
Good people go to bed earlier.
Encryption, message signing ... does it ring any bells? And why exactly do you think that artificial heart would even accept command to slow down below safe level? Even ignoring communication security, you would not want to give your patient easy way to kill himself by mistake.
Given the (lack of) alternative, it's certainly an improvement in this case. I was objecting to TFS's "More than just pumping blood, future artificial hearts will bring numerous other advantages with them. They will have computer chips and wi-fi capacity built into them. We'll control our hearts with our smart phones, tuning down its pumping capacity when we want to sleep, or tuning it up when we want to run marathons." blather.
Since there aren't enough donor organs, and those tend to have their own problems, a deeply imperfect artificial apparatus beats the alternative; but characterizing its defects as 'numerous other advantages' is just idiotic. It makes about as much sense as describing an insulin pump as an 'improvement' because you can arduously fiddle with delivery profiles, rather than using lame, old-school, feedback systems.
When the alternative is death, many imperfect substitutes are good ideas; but that is very different from their being 'improvements' except in the strictly local case of patients in markedly worse than normal shape.
"Near Field" is a very specific thing. Whatever you're thinking of there, certainly isn't what I'm talking about - the near field of 2.4ghz would be around 1/10 of a meter away and no further.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
So what is your point, really? Abandon all health care?
You do realise that there are a lot of people with excellent cognitive abilities dying of heart failure every day, and that many could have lived decades of high quality life had their hearts been healthy, right?
We can reduce the ethical problems if we neglect to clone all of the cerebral cortex and at least most of the lymbic system. The clone would then be a mindless vegetable, capable of breathing and excreting, and nothing else. There is no evil in killing a zombie, and there is no evil in making a clone start out as a zombie (whereas there would be evil in making a normal person become a zombie).
There is a basic human inclination to selfishness that is caused by instinct and reinforced by our habit of perceiving ourselves as fundamentally separated from others (Me here with World out there). There is also a basic human inclination towards generosity that comes mostly from our pack instincts and is reinforced by cultural values. Most of the arguments around enlightened self interest are motivated from these two inclinations.
I am inclined to reflect, however, that if each neuron in my brain operated as independently as each amoeba in a pond, my mind would not exist. There would be no thoughts at all, nor any concept of self. In order for something as complicated as me to exist, individual organisms (my brain cells) must sacrifice their independence and accept their role as subservient to a larger collective. This surrender must be complete; the neurons do not (and must not) act on selfish motivations.
It is easy for us to say that individual existence is not part of the nature of a neuron. A neuron fundamentally *is* part of a greater whole. But if you trace back our evolutionary history far enough, you will see this was not always true of the neuron (or of any kind of cell).
In order for humanity to progress beyond the problems of our day, a similar transition will be necessary. The more people understand themselves as part of a group, rather than as individuals at odds with their neighbors, the more we will be able to cooperatively overcome whatever ails us.
Zoom out far enough, and the human race looks like just another cell colony on its slow journey towards ever more complex forms of integration.