I'm for genetic modification, but lets be rational
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
What purpose does genetically modified "food" serve? You seem to think no ethics at all apply to food, but I'm not about to support more dangerous food. Food is dangerous enough. It's got nothing to do with Bush and stem cell research, research is just fine, we are talking about the eco-system here when we discuss food, every human must eat, and not all humans, and not all animals, want to eat scientifically manipulated food. It should be our choice.
Each human does not have exactly the same genes, each animal does not have exactly the same genes, and the genes in a plant are VASTLY VASTLY different from the genes in a human. A plant grows from the damn ground and eats sunlight, tell me how the hell you can believe a human shares genes with a plant. Even if humans share a few genes with a plant, we don't share insulin genes with plants, we don't share brain and heart genes with plants, these genes are so specific to humans that plants can't use human insulin, well I guess now they can.
Obesity is caused by bad genes says Parent poster
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
Yes obesity is caused by genes. So why don't we change the genetics to make it so people can't become insulin resistant? Why isnt the Corn Syrup industry paying to cure insulin resistance? It's good for their business if people can keep buying high fructose corn syrup, and people will buy less when they go diabetic, so whats your point? If you work for the corn syrup lobby it's in your best interest to cure diabetes so you can sell more corn syrup drinks to kids. Coke should be funding the cure for diabetes simply because it makes business sense, but they arent, just like big tabacco does not want to cure lung cancer.
And did you know you've already most likely consumed genetically modified food as well? Did you know that not only does everything have high fructose corn syrup, but almost everything has dextrose, maltidextrin, corn syrup, and many other chemicals?
Let's just say the food is dirty. Consume it at your own risk, it's like with tabacco.
Genetically engineered sugar.
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
Just because everything has sugar in it, doesnt mean it's always the same sugar. We went from cane sugar, to beet sugar, to corn syrup, to high fructose corn syrup, and eventually genetically modified high fructose corn syrup, so in theory it might not even be corn syrup anymore.
Genetically engineered food, is it safe? I wouldnt be surprised if it caused diabetes. My advice, don't eat so much corn. If you must deal with corn, use ethanol.
Wait till you try the genetically engineered corn
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
Corn Syrup will be much much sweeter when we genetically engineer it. Just wait, it will be x1000 sweeter and more syrupy. Mmm Syrupy Syrup! We humans were designed like flies, it's in our genes.
Re:That's great and all, but...
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
You want a machine in your body? What if its hackable?
Stem Cell research will not cure you
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
People who think Stem Cell research will cure anything, maybe in 50-100 years if theres an earth left. Stem Cell research is important, because it's important to study the human body, but don't expect a miracle cure from stem cel research, it's at the same level that AI is at in terms of quality.
Yes I think we should be spending a fortune on it, yes I do think it will solve most of our problems and cure most of our diseases in the long term. The problem we face is lasting long enough as a species to research stem cells, so while I respect the stem cell point of view, we must take into account that technology for the sake of technology does nothing to change the future, and seriously, curing diseases is the furthest thing from most peoples minds right now. Stem Cell research is important, but curing diabetes? I wish.
It's not like all medicine has to be done in the for profit drug industry. Set up a non profit, donate money, hire your scientists personally, and cure insulin resistance.
Actually there are vitamins which work right now, the problem is, the drug companies do not like the supplement companies. Ultimately however, insulin production and diabetes may already be cured as we speak, the problem is, even if it is cured, none of us have access to the treatment. It is possible to regenerate beta cells. It is also possible to make insulin more efficient. The body is controlled easily, and the cure for diabetes could be introduced via a virus as a genetic medicine. The cure exists, it's out there, and it's most likely going to remain surpressed because you are right, cures arent only less profitable, but drug companies have more control over you in general if you need certain drugs than if you are drug free. You just have to cure it yourself, or figure out how, and if you do find a cure or a doctor or scientist who can cure it, it's most likely going to be a black market affair.
This has nothing to do with diabetes.
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: -1, Troll
This has everything to do with mixing human and plant genetics. Why on earth would we want to do that, and mix it into the seeds? This is an example of ecosphere pollution, and when we run out of food because all the seeds are genetically fucked up, well, who knows what the result will be. Also what happens if these new human/plants evolve intelligence? Remember killer bees, the aggressive bees?
This is serious, why pick plants? Why don't we put human genes in our pets at least so we can monitor the experiment, Dogs and Cats would be fine for genetic experiments, because we don't eat them, they are domesticated, and we already treat them in a slave like fashion a lot of the time. No, instead we choose to enslave and domesticate the plant species next, and pollute the species genetically, who knows what the side effects of this are long term. Will it alter the evolution of plants? Possible. Will it cause plants to take over the earth in 1000 years? It's possible. I understand the reason why it makes sense to put human genes in animals and other mammals, but mixing humans and plants can have all sorts of long term side effects we cannot predict right now. Plant insulin already exists, so why do we need plants to generate animal insulin, and what exactly do we need it in the seed for?
Try having sex with a plant.
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I think anyone can see, that humans and plants arent designed to be matched up. Sure you can genetically engineer it, you can do anything, but why pick a plant? It's a useless function. Tell me the real reason anyone would choose a plant even for a genetic experiment? Why do we want to pollute the ecosphere? We cannot get another ecosphere, and while I know some experiments are important, why sunflower seeds,and why human genes in sunflower seeds? We could be making food more nutritious and healthy, but instead we are working on putting human insulin in it, I think you can see why this seems a bit odd. In fact I cannot see how it can be a positive experiment in any way for anyone.
This isnt a breakthrough, it's genetic engineering
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Why do we need bio-technology, when we already HAVE plant insulin. Unless you can consume the seeds by mouth, I don't see how this is a useful advance. Human insulin from plants means if you plant the seed it will be part human, that freaks me the hell out, how about you?
At the same time, I understand the wisdom in creating hybrids, but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.
If our goal is to mix human genes as an experiment, lets use primates, lets create a bigfoot in a lab, lets mix human genes in dogs, or cats even, but why the hell in a plant? I'd love to be able to talk to my dog or cat, but why a plant?
What beach do you expect to exist? The polluted radiated beach? No jobs = no usefulness. If you are rich, yes you'll be on the beach, the rest of us will be fighting the machines because the machines will be our competition.
Dying is the easy part, it's living that is hard. And no, 100 years? maybe in the next 20.
You are right we might go extinct, it's certainly a possibility, but it's also a possibility that some of us would be willing to build our replacements before we go extinct.
here is a question, how much money would it take for you to build a robot to replace yourself?
The more we model computers after the human brain, the less value the human brain will ahve. Please people, you are inventing your replacement, and to me this is equal to going to India or China to train yuor replacements who will then program computers robotics to replace themselves. I mean yeah, sure, if you are that desperate for money go ahead and build your replacement, but I'd rather see AI used to help humans work better than to do work humans could be doing. Otherwise, we will have a world with a few hundred humans and millions of computers and robots.
Exit Man, Enter Brainbox. This brainbox will ultimately reduce the value of human life, why? How many humans will we need once computers can do all the work and robots can be more productive than humans?
Don't tell me humans will be needed to program and repair because these self healing robots are being invented to prevent that.
If this brain in a box is successful, humans will be worthless. How are we supposed to compete with machines that never get tired, never sleep, never eat, etc?
In fact, the only consequence of your idea that I can figure out is that you'd have the scenario where people would comply with the regulations initially, and then pollute more and more -- still in compliance -- as their "privilages" were increased. At the same time, the people who were initially failing to comply would be subject to more and more stringent regulations, and more fines/higher taxes/whatever you want to call it. It sounds like extra complication for no apparent benefit, to me.
The main reason I support positive reinforcement instead, is because you make a certain assumption that all will pollute equally, or misunderstood that by rewarding environmental instinct you can encourage those instincts much in the same way that greed is rewarded through money. Regulation alone cannot work, and I can accept that we need some regulation, you have to understand that no human likes regulation, even when they agree with you on the need for it. I think we have to reward good behavior, not simply punish bad behavior.
What they get in return is not having to deal with the judicial system for breaking the law! (Note that this is the case in both the Libertarian and Green systems; the difference is that the charge in the Green case would be failure to comply with environmental regulations while the charge in the Libertarian case would be failure to pay the increased taxes.)
As a matter of tools, I'd think that from my perspective the greens prefer to rely on a lot of old or traditional tools with the assumption that we will always have say, a working judicial system. The Green party, or Libertarian party, must also invent new systems which most likely do not exist, and they do not have to be based on big government, you have the private sector as well. I guess I favor the libertarians because I view the private sector as more efficient, but I suppose the ideal situation is small efficient government, with a robust/diverse private sector.
As far as the libertarians and greens getting along, I think the main conflict point is in strategy. Libertians have a deep fear of loss of freedom, rights, etc because to the libertarian spirit, freedom is very important for quality of life. I think the greens care about quality of life too, the only fear is on the freedom issue.
In order to build an alliance, I don't think it would be as difficult as you seem to think, the only element missing is the religious/spiritual element, once that element is in place the greens and libs will have a new set of concepts and semantics to communicate with. The issue is an issue of communication, between two instictively similar camps. It is an issue of semantics, and of trust, I'm guessing most libertarians think the green party will be for big government, and I think the greens think the libertarian party will be for big business. I think it is that issue that confuses individuals on both sides. So switch it to a more moral atmosphere, if we can discuss the morality and spiritual bonds between both parties that will bring unity.
I understand your individual point of view, the problem with your hypothesis is that it ignores the fact that everyone is sick and dying. Each and every human has a sickness so who decides which sickness should or shouldnt be cured? We do. Who decides which sickness is beneficial for survival and which causes death? We do.
In general, evolution is not about healthy and sick, our evolution is controlled by our economy, and has been for thousands of years, so at this point it does not make much sense to pretend natural selection, intelligent selection, or any of these types of individual actions have anything to do with evolution besides being born into the lucky sperm club and or having the greed gene.
If greed is the key to survive of the individual, but also may cause the death of the species due to over consumption, can you see the point now? Yes you can be the fittest in the current world, but only if the world exists are the current world currently exists, and from what we all see, this current world is just unsustainable. At some point there will be no more money to make, no more resources to fight over, and we will only have each other, and at this point it's like taking a deck of cards and shuffling it, no one really knows who the fittest is for a species, we only know who the fittest is in capitalism.
That is my point, there is no fittest if humans are dying out. If humans are dying out, it means we as a species are unfit. I think you can agree, that animals unlike humans, are not aware enough to control their own evolution in a precise way, but we are. In general, can we all say that as a species we are doing whats in our best interest? Sure some of us do whats in our individual best interest but at the cost of harming our future selves, and or our kids, so you can see it's a very difficult set of problems we face which cannot be simplified down to survival of the fittest. The fittest often are the first to die, and it is possible to be too fit for survival just as it's possible to be not fit enough. If someone were born today, who had an IQ of 500, and who never aged, people would be jealous and this person would most likely be killed and then studied. In the end, being born with a good set of genes is not as important as being born at the right time, the right place, and into the right family.
Einstien was a genius, and very fit intellectually, but had he stayed in Nazi Germany, none of this would have mattered now would it? You can be smart, you can be dumb, you can be physically strong or physically weak, you can be of any race, but in the end society defines what is fit, and so far I havent seen much of a scientific process in this definition.
Do we actually have a science to decide what fit is on the species level, or do we just simply pick among ourselves who will be fit for this century, o rthat century, or this decade or that, etc? You might be right, evolution might exist, but if we treat it like a religion, even if it exists, it's not always going to work in our favor.
Well, it depends, it's definately coming, but it's undecided if it will destroy us or not. The Singularity sounds good on paper, but seriously, how will the singularity help the species itself anymore than say, nuclear energy did, or any of the other discoveries?
We are past the point where medicine can help. The situation looks something like this;
1. We go extinct.
2. We design newer and better versions of humans using medicine, science and technology.
3. We spend our time enjoying the limited time we have left and stop worrying about healthcare, medicine and science.
So these are 3 potential outlooks, there might be more, but in general there is not much time left. Fusing technology and medicine is fine, and transhumanism is fine, but what exactly does surgery have to do with it? In the end, even if we have the worlds greatest hospitals, it will not make a bit of difference because we cannot even decide if we want to live or die, or have long or short lifespans, or if we want to be transhumanist or extinct. The point is, nothing can change if people simply consider it business as usual, if this is just a ploy to make money by the technology and medical industries, in the end there will be a lot of very sophisticated yet useless equipment, that may extend the lifespans of a few individuals, but which won't really influence the lifespan of the species itself. So the whole debate is about the lifespan of the species not simply the lifespan of the individual, how does this technology change anything?
I'm guessing it doesnt, but it would make a very wise investment, and it will be very profitable, much like cosmetics and genetically engineered food. In our current stage, the next debate will be designer babies, and nootropics. Yes it is possible to invent a pill to boost an individuals intelligence. Yes it is possible to ONLY have intelligent babies, and this would decrease the need and cost of the education system.
Slashdot Mirror
What purpose does genetically modified "food" serve? You seem to think no ethics at all apply to food, but I'm not about to support more dangerous food. Food is dangerous enough. It's got nothing to do with Bush and stem cell research, research is just fine, we are talking about the eco-system here when we discuss food, every human must eat, and not all humans, and not all animals, want to eat scientifically manipulated food. It should be our choice.
Each human does not have exactly the same genes, each animal does not have exactly the same genes, and the genes in a plant are VASTLY VASTLY different from the genes in a human. A plant grows from the damn ground and eats sunlight, tell me how the hell you can believe a human shares genes with a plant. Even if humans share a few genes with a plant, we don't share insulin genes with plants, we don't share brain and heart genes with plants, these genes are so specific to humans that plants can't use human insulin, well I guess now they can.
Yes obesity is caused by genes. So why don't we change the genetics to make it so people can't become insulin resistant? Why isnt the Corn Syrup industry paying to cure insulin resistance? It's good for their business if people can keep buying high fructose corn syrup, and people will buy less when they go diabetic, so whats your point? If you work for the corn syrup lobby it's in your best interest to cure diabetes so you can sell more corn syrup drinks to kids. Coke should be funding the cure for diabetes simply because it makes business sense, but they arent, just like big tabacco does not want to cure lung cancer.
What if your pancrease gets hacked? This is as silly as an artificial heart.
And did you know you've already most likely consumed genetically modified food as well? Did you know that not only does everything have high fructose corn syrup, but almost everything has dextrose, maltidextrin, corn syrup, and many other chemicals?
Let's just say the food is dirty. Consume it at your own risk, it's like with tabacco.
Just because everything has sugar in it, doesnt mean it's always the same sugar. We went from cane sugar, to beet sugar, to corn syrup, to high fructose corn syrup, and eventually genetically modified high fructose corn syrup, so in theory it might not even be corn syrup anymore.
Genetically engineered food, is it safe? I wouldnt be surprised if it caused diabetes. My advice, don't eat so much corn. If you must deal with corn, use ethanol.
Corn Syrup will be much much sweeter when we genetically engineer it. Just wait, it will be x1000 sweeter and more syrupy. Mmm Syrupy Syrup! We humans were designed like flies, it's in our genes.
You want a machine in your body? What if its hackable?
People who think Stem Cell research will cure anything, maybe in 50-100 years if theres an earth left. Stem Cell research is important, because it's important to study the human body, but don't expect a miracle cure from stem cel research, it's at the same level that AI is at in terms of quality.
Yes I think we should be spending a fortune on it, yes I do think it will solve most of our problems and cure most of our diseases in the long term. The problem we face is lasting long enough as a species to research stem cells, so while I respect the stem cell point of view, we must take into account that technology for the sake of technology does nothing to change the future, and seriously, curing diseases is the furthest thing from most peoples minds right now. Stem Cell research is important, but curing diabetes? I wish.
It's not like all medicine has to be done in the for profit drug industry. Set up a non profit, donate money, hire your scientists personally, and cure insulin resistance.
Actually there are vitamins which work right now, the problem is, the drug companies do not like the supplement companies. Ultimately however, insulin production and diabetes may already be cured as we speak, the problem is, even if it is cured, none of us have access to the treatment. It is possible to regenerate beta cells. It is also possible to make insulin more efficient. The body is controlled easily, and the cure for diabetes could be introduced via a virus as a genetic medicine. The cure exists, it's out there, and it's most likely going to remain surpressed because you are right, cures arent only less profitable, but drug companies have more control over you in general if you need certain drugs than if you are drug free. You just have to cure it yourself, or figure out how, and if you do find a cure or a doctor or scientist who can cure it, it's most likely going to be a black market affair.
This has everything to do with mixing human and plant genetics. Why on earth would we want to do that, and mix it into the seeds? This is an example of ecosphere pollution, and when we run out of food because all the seeds are genetically fucked up, well, who knows what the result will be. Also what happens if these new human/plants evolve intelligence? Remember killer bees, the aggressive bees?
This is serious, why pick plants? Why don't we put human genes in our pets at least so we can monitor the experiment, Dogs and Cats would be fine for genetic experiments, because we don't eat them, they are domesticated, and we already treat them in a slave like fashion a lot of the time. No, instead we choose to enslave and domesticate the plant species next, and pollute the species genetically, who knows what the side effects of this are long term. Will it alter the evolution of plants? Possible. Will it cause plants to take over the earth in 1000 years? It's possible. I understand the reason why it makes sense to put human genes in animals and other mammals, but mixing humans and plants can have all sorts of long term side effects we cannot predict right now. Plant insulin already exists, so why do we need plants to generate animal insulin, and what exactly do we need it in the seed for?
I think anyone can see, that humans and plants arent designed to be matched up. Sure you can genetically engineer it, you can do anything, but why pick a plant? It's a useless function. Tell me the real reason anyone would choose a plant even for a genetic experiment? Why do we want to pollute the ecosphere? We cannot get another ecosphere, and while I know some experiments are important, why sunflower seeds ,and why human genes in sunflower seeds? We could be making food more nutritious and healthy, but instead we are working on putting human insulin in it, I think you can see why this seems a bit odd. In fact I cannot see how it can be a positive experiment in any way for anyone.
Why do we need bio-technology, when we already HAVE plant insulin. Unless you can consume the seeds by mouth, I don't see how this is a useful advance. Human insulin from plants means if you plant the seed it will be part human, that freaks me the hell out, how about you?
At the same time, I understand the wisdom in creating hybrids, but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.
If our goal is to mix human genes as an experiment, lets use primates, lets create a bigfoot in a lab, lets mix human genes in dogs, or cats even, but why the hell in a plant? I'd love to be able to talk to my dog or cat, but why a plant?
What beach do you expect to exist? The polluted radiated beach? No jobs = no usefulness. If you are rich, yes you'll be on the beach, the rest of us will be fighting the machines because the machines will be our competition.
Prove to me, after looking at this world, that humans value themselves. If we value ourselves why are we killing ourselves in every possible way?
Dying is the easy part, it's living that is hard. And no, 100 years? maybe in the next 20.
You are right we might go extinct, it's certainly a possibility, but it's also a possibility that some of us would be willing to build our replacements before we go extinct.
here is a question, how much money would it take for you to build a robot to replace yourself?
At least if computers are our overlords, we will still have jobs. If robots take over however, what do we need humans for?
The more we model computers after the human brain, the less value the human brain will ahve. Please people, you are inventing your replacement, and to me this is equal to going to India or China to train yuor replacements who will then program computers robotics to replace themselves. I mean yeah, sure, if you are that desperate for money go ahead and build your replacement, but I'd rather see AI used to help humans work better than to do work humans could be doing. Otherwise, we will have a world with a few hundred humans and millions of computers and robots.
Exit Man, Enter Brainbox. This brainbox will ultimately reduce the value of human life, why? How many humans will we need once computers can do all the work and robots can be more productive than humans?
Don't tell me humans will be needed to program and repair because these self healing robots are being invented to prevent that.
If this brain in a box is successful, humans will be worthless. How are we supposed to compete with machines that never get tired, never sleep, never eat, etc?
In fact, the only consequence of your idea that I can figure out is that you'd have the scenario where people would comply with the regulations initially, and then pollute more and more -- still in compliance -- as their "privilages" were increased. At the same time, the people who were initially failing to comply would be subject to more and more stringent regulations, and more fines/higher taxes/whatever you want to call it. It sounds like extra complication for no apparent benefit, to me.
The main reason I support positive reinforcement instead, is because you make a certain assumption that all will pollute equally, or misunderstood that by rewarding environmental instinct you can encourage those instincts much in the same way that greed is rewarded through money. Regulation alone cannot work, and I can accept that we need some regulation, you have to understand that no human likes regulation, even when they agree with you on the need for it. I think we have to reward good behavior, not simply punish bad behavior.
What they get in return is not having to deal with the judicial system for breaking the law! (Note that this is the case in both the Libertarian and Green systems; the difference is that the charge in the Green case would be failure to comply with environmental regulations while the charge in the Libertarian case would be failure to pay the increased taxes.)
As a matter of tools, I'd think that from my perspective the greens prefer to rely on a lot of old or traditional tools with the assumption that we will always have say, a working judicial system. The Green party, or Libertarian party, must also invent new systems which most likely do not exist, and they do not have to be based on big government, you have the private sector as well. I guess I favor the libertarians because I view the private sector as more efficient, but I suppose the ideal situation is small efficient government, with a robust/diverse private sector.
As far as the libertarians and greens getting along, I think the main conflict point is in strategy. Libertians have a deep fear of loss of freedom, rights, etc because to the libertarian spirit, freedom is very important for quality of life. I think the greens care about quality of life too, the only fear is on the freedom issue.
In order to build an alliance, I don't think it would be as difficult as you seem to think, the only element missing is the religious/spiritual element, once that element is in place the greens and libs will have a new set of concepts and semantics to communicate with. The issue is an issue of communication, between two instictively similar camps. It is an issue of semantics, and of trust, I'm guessing most libertarians think the green party will be for big government, and I think the greens think the libertarian party will be for big business. I think it is that issue that confuses individuals on both sides. So switch it to a more moral atmosphere, if we can discuss the morality and spiritual bonds between both parties that will bring unity.
If you think genetically engineered food is so healthy, why don't you eat it? I'll buy stock in it so I can profit from each bite you take.
I understand your individual point of view, the problem with your hypothesis is that it ignores the fact that everyone is sick and dying. Each and every human has a sickness so who decides which sickness should or shouldnt be cured? We do. Who decides which sickness is beneficial for survival and which causes death? We do.
In general, evolution is not about healthy and sick, our evolution is controlled by our economy, and has been for thousands of years, so at this point it does not make much sense to pretend natural selection, intelligent selection, or any of these types of individual actions have anything to do with evolution besides being born into the lucky sperm club and or having the greed gene.
If greed is the key to survive of the individual, but also may cause the death of the species due to over consumption, can you see the point now? Yes you can be the fittest in the current world, but only if the world exists are the current world currently exists, and from what we all see, this current world is just unsustainable. At some point there will be no more money to make, no more resources to fight over, and we will only have each other, and at this point it's like taking a deck of cards and shuffling it, no one really knows
who the fittest is for a species, we only know who the fittest is in capitalism.
That is my point, there is no fittest if humans are dying out. If humans are dying out, it means we as a species are unfit. I think you can agree, that animals unlike humans, are not aware enough to control their own evolution in a precise way, but we are. In general, can we all say that as a species we are doing whats in our best interest? Sure some of us do whats in our individual best interest but at the cost of harming our future selves, and or our kids, so you can see it's a very difficult set of problems we face which cannot be simplified down to survival of the fittest. The fittest often are the first to die, and it is possible to be too fit for survival just as it's possible to be not fit enough. If someone were born today, who had an IQ of 500, and who never aged, people would be jealous and this person would most likely be killed and then studied. In the end, being born with a good set of genes is not as important as being born at the right time, the right place, and into the right family.
Einstien was a genius, and very fit intellectually, but had he stayed in Nazi Germany, none of this would have mattered now would it? You can be smart, you can be dumb, you can be physically strong or physically weak, you can be of any race, but in the end society defines what is fit, and so far I havent seen much of a scientific process in this definition.
Do we actually have a science to decide what fit is on the species level, or do we just simply pick among ourselves who will be fit for this century, o rthat century, or this decade or that, etc? You might be right, evolution might exist, but if we treat it like a religion, even if it exists, it's not always going to work in our favor.
Well, it depends, it's definately coming, but it's undecided if it will destroy us or not. The Singularity sounds good on paper, but seriously, how will the singularity help the species itself anymore than say, nuclear energy did, or any of the other discoveries?
We are past the point where medicine can help. The situation looks something like this;
1. We go extinct.
2. We design newer and better versions of humans using medicine, science and technology.
3. We spend our time enjoying the limited time we have left and stop worrying about healthcare, medicine and science.
So these are 3 potential outlooks, there might be more, but in general there is not much time left. Fusing technology and medicine is fine, and transhumanism is fine, but what exactly does surgery have to do with it? In the end, even if we have the worlds greatest hospitals, it will not make a bit of difference because we cannot even decide if we want to live or die, or have long or short lifespans, or if we want to be transhumanist or extinct. The point is, nothing can change if people simply consider it business as usual, if this is just a ploy to make money by the technology and medical industries, in the end there will be a lot of very sophisticated yet useless equipment, that may extend the lifespans of a few individuals, but which won't really influence the lifespan of the species itself. So the whole debate is about the lifespan of the species not simply the lifespan of the individual, how does this technology change anything?
I'm guessing it doesnt, but it would make a very wise investment, and it will be very profitable, much like cosmetics and genetically engineered food. In our current stage, the next debate will be designer babies, and nootropics. Yes it is possible to invent a pill to boost an individuals intelligence. Yes it is possible to ONLY have intelligent babies, and this would decrease the need and cost of the education system.
Go to Better Humans . COM, Plenty of info there.