Paul R Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 They sue tiny robots to program the cells? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 I will just refer to a couple of articles in the stem cell nanotechnology sphere ... The one that is used here is the scaffold platform ... http://biotech.about.com/od/nanotechnology/a/NanotechandStemCells.htm .... While the potential applications for nanotechnology in stem cell research are countless, three main categories can be assigned to their use: tracking or labeling delivery scaffold/platforms ... Older article: http://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=161 .... Stem cell nanotechnology refers to the application of nanotechnology in stem cell research. The marriage of nanotechnology and stem cells will dramatically advance our ability to understand and control stem cell-fate decisions and develop novel stem cell technologies, which will eventually lead to stem cell-based therapeutics for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human diseases .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seba Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Why are we being compared to cars?? We werent designed or made, we evolved and grew! Human beings will end up living up to 200 years in the comming century if you ask me. If you look at the timescale in 1840 humans had a life of about 40 years. In 1960 about 70 years and now in 2010 80 years. This only thx to the most basic of medicins like peniciline etc. With this kind of surgeries coming up and whatever technologie the near future brings i wouldn't be surprised if we could reach 300 years. Only problem all people will be have demential issues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Human beings will end up living up to 200 years in the comming century if you ask me. If you look at the timescale in 1840 humans had a life of about 40 years. In 1960 about 70 years and now in 2010 80 years. This only thx to the most basic of medicins like peniciline etc. With this kind of surgeries coming up and whatever technologie the near future brings i wouldn't be surprised if we could reach 300 years. Only problem all people will be have demential issues I think you must have a screw loose already. How old are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Fact: There longest a man ever lived according to the records is 122. There are over 44,000 centenarians in japan who are competing to cross this number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seba Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I think you must have a screw loose already. How old are you? Well what do you think people said to someone back in 1840 saying people would live up to 120 years? Indeed that he has a screw loose. But here we are with the oldest man being 122 years old. That's 3x longer than in 1840. So if i say we will live up to 300 years don't take me for a fool because as proven it could all be very well possible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Question: If our technology gets to a stage where we can create a nano-cell that is manufactured, basically a microchip. And we could replace a human cell in the body with that chip, and it functions exactly the same as a normal cell, same electrical inputs and outputs and same chemical signatures. Replacing one cell would have no noticable difference to your life, what happens if you replaced your entire brain with these cells one by one? Technically if you replace a like for like basis you're not changing anything at each step, each chip mimics precisely the cell it replaces, you then have a completely manufactured machine brain. Are you still you? Do you still feel? Is it just that we don't have the knowledge to do this, but theoretically a perfect human analogue robot is viable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Question: If our technology gets to a stage where we can create a nano-cell that is manufactured, basically a microchip. And we could replace a human cell in the body with that chip, and it functions exactly the same as a normal cell, same electrical inputs and outputs and same chemical signatures. Replacing one cell would have no noticable difference to your life, what happens if you replaced your entire brain with these cells one by one? Technically if you replace a like for like basis you're not changing anything at each step, each chip mimics precisely the cell it replaces, you then have a completely manufactured machine brain. Are you still you? Do you still feel? Is it just that we don't have the knowledge to do this, but theoretically a perfect human analogue robot is viable? very good question!! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Question: If our technology gets to a stage where we can create a nano-cell that is manufactured, basically a microchip. And we could replace a human cell in the body with that chip, and it functions exactly the same as a normal cell, same electrical inputs and outputs and same chemical signatures. Replacing one cell would have no noticable difference to your life, what happens if you replaced your entire brain with these cells one by one? Technically if you replace a like for like basis you're not changing anything at each step, each chip mimics precisely the cell it replaces, you then have a completely manufactured machine brain. Are you still you? Do you still feel? Is it just that we don't have the knowledge to do this, but theoretically a perfect human analogue robot is viable? There is nanocell technology but it is not in the way you are describing in here. Nanocell is used to deliver drugs to cells and tissue at the lowest cellular or subcellular level. There cannot be any synthetic cell that can be based on nanotechnology that can replace our existing cell. This is because they dont have DNA. The difference between biological and non biological matter is DNA. You can make the composition of a nonbiological matter exactly same as biological matter but you cannot provide it with a working DNA and so it cannot come to life. But what you can have is the basic/generic cell - Stem cell, that you can program to build any organ, which is what happens at the moment in an embryo. A bunch of cell depending on the DNA grows different organs and bones when you are in the womb. Until 2 decades ago the assumption was that this organic growth of organs form stem cells can only occur in the womb. What science + nanotechnology is doing for us now is that we can grow this inside a lab outside the womb. The process of aging can also be slowed down quite dramatically (not sure it could be reversed like in the film). So in the future even though you are 100 you still would be strong and not retired from work. The important thing we should understand here is that our generation is in the border line for this tech to become mainstream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 There is nanocell technology but it is not in the way you are describing in here. Nanocell is used to deliver drugs to cells and tissue at the lowest cellular or subcellular level. There cannot be any synthetic cell that can be based on nanotechnology that can replace our existing cell. This is because they dont have DNA. The difference between biological and non biological matter is DNA. You can make the composition of a nonbiological matter exactly same as biological matter but you cannot provide it with a working DNA and so it cannot come to life. Well I'm sorry to go off topic, it was sort of related, but I don't mean now I mean in future when we have the nano-tech to make a nano-chip that does EXACTLY what a cell does (not using DNA obviously, just using our normal computer technology). You'd have to bespoke manufacture every single cell to replace each cell individually - a pointless exercise most likely - but if.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 There is something call synthetic DNA which is already in existence. This will aid in creating synthetic cells. Currently synthetic cells are created in labs it will be a while before you can build synthetic organs which will not die. The DNA code is already decoded which makes the synthetic cell a reality. This was an year ago in 2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists By Victoria GillScience reporter, BBC News The synthetic cell looks identical to the 'wild type' Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first living cell to be controlled entirely by synthetic DNA. The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell. The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated" by the synthetic DNA. The advance, published in Science, has been hailed as a scientific landmark, but critics say there are dangers posed by synthetic organisms. Some also suggest that the potential benefits of the technology have been over-stated. But the researchers hope eventually to design bacterial cells that will produce medicines and fuels and even absorb greenhouse gases. The team was led by Dr Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Maryland and California. Craig Venter defends the synthetic living cell He and his colleagues had previously made a synthetic bacterial genome, and transplanted the genome of one bacterium into another. Now, the scientists have put both methods together, to create what they call a "synthetic cell", although only its genome is truly synthetic. Dr Venter likened the advance to making new software for the cell. The researchers copied an existing bacterial genome. They sequenced its genetic code and then used "synthesis machines" to chemically construct a copy. The scientists "decoded" the chromosome of an existing bacterial cell - using a computer to read each of the letters of genetic code. Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism."As soon as this new software goes into the cell, the cell reads [it] and converts into the species specified in that genetic code." The new bacteria replicated over a billion times, producing copies that contained and were controlled by the constructed, synthetic DNA. "This is the first time any synthetic DNA has been in complete control of a cell," said Dr Venter. 'New industrial revolution' Dr Venter and his colleagues hope eventually to design and build new bacteria that will perform useful functions."I think they're going to potentially create a new industrial revolution," he said. "If we can really get cells to do the production that we want, they could help wean us off oil and reverse some of the damage to the environment by capturing carbon dioxide." .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathanc Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 hmm .. in that case we should close all our hospitals and stop doing any operations/surgeries to increase human life span. Infact the moment our species started thinking and getting more intelligent that is when we started playing god ... if you call it playing GOD! Maybe we should not think at all in the first place if you dont want to play GOD. Then you will never know about GOD either! Catch 22 init? Coz if you think and use intelligence you will end up playing GOD and prove GOD dont exist and if you dont think (prob because of no intelligence) then you will not play GOD but then you will not also dont understand the word GOD. Either way GOD dont exist. My my no need to be hostile... I am all for advancement in medicinal science to improve the living standards of all mankind. However, you need to think when boundaries are being pushed to the extreme. Artificial cells? Artificial DNA? Is there a limit? I believe you would agree in animal cloning as well since the process basically creates superior breed of animals? Can I ask if you are an atheist btw? You seem to have a very deep hatred for the word "God". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 My my no need to be hostile... I am all for advancement in medicinal science to improve the living standards of all mankind. However, you need to think when boundaries are being pushed to the extreme. Artificial cells? Artificial DNA? Is there a limit? I believe you would agree in animal cloning as well since the process basically creates superior breed of animals? Can I ask if you are an atheist btw? You seem to have a very deep hatred for the word "God". Your second post doesn't seem to tie in with your first, you claim to be all for the advancement of medical science but an operation that saves a young man's life (who has a baby daughter), is unacceptable because it is playing god? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 My grandmother is a 200 year old cyborg. Now that's what I call Nana-technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdistc Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Question: If our technology gets to a stage where we can create a nano-cell that is manufactured, basically a microchip. And we could replace a human cell in the body with that chip, and it functions exactly the same as a normal cell, same electrical inputs and outputs and same chemical signatures. Replacing one cell would have no noticable difference to your life, what happens if you replaced your entire brain with these cells one by one? Technically if you replace a like for like basis you're not changing anything at each step, each chip mimics precisely the cell it replaces, you then have a completely manufactured machine brain. Are you still you? Do you still feel? Is it just that we don't have the knowledge to do this, but theoretically a perfect human analogue robot is viable? Ahh, the old "Ship of Theseus" conundrum. Was discussing this medical first with a patient the other day - and although it will more likely accentuate the differences between first and third world (as this technology will only be available to the wealthy), it might drive more esoteric developments * long term changes to the work-life balance, to create happier and more well-balanced individuals * more long-term government policy, thinking in decades and centuries rather than political terms * forced improvements in water and waste recycling, renewable energy sources, and population density * possibly, when population pressures become too great, interplanetary/interstellar colonisation and exploration Another interesting development is the newest experimental fusion reactor in France - which, if fusion improves in efficiency, could trigger a second Industrial revolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 You will hear, may be not so distant in the future that we will be working until 85 before we retire and get any pension ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 Dont think most of you guys want to hear this, also it is pushing it a bit too far for current cultures/standards and slightly related to the topic of this thread.... MEAT This is humans will be able to grow meat by cloning muscle tissue. Growing just part of the animal we need. No animal suffering involved and the meat gets highly inexpensive with high quality of nutrients we need. Most of all no environmental damage like factory farming and no need to rear animals and deal with their disease. This has been done experimentally and is about 20 years away from becoming part of our lifestyle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I had a lovely fillet steak and chips last night, medium-rare, with a Carribean sundae to finish . Bet a grown-clone steak won't taste as nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 Some answers/predictions can be found at - 'Transcendent Man' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhB6J23Qjs Ray Kurzweil - Scientist & Engineer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathanc Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Your second post doesn't seem to tie in with your first, you claim to be all for the advancement of medical science but an operation that saves a young man's life (who has a baby daughter), is unacceptable because it is playing god? My first response is just a comment to edinlexusV8's statement : I may be too optimistic but in 30 years from now we should be able to replace all our ageing organs, easily living for 150 years or possibly even longer! Seriously this is a possibility! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TubbyTwo Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 They have also started to create arteries in a similar way. I think its fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edinlexusV8 Posted July 12, 2011 Author Share Posted July 12, 2011 My my no need to be hostile... I am all for advancement in medicinal science to improve the living standards of all mankind. However, you need to think when boundaries are being pushed to the extreme. Artificial cells? Artificial DNA? Is there a limit? I believe you would agree in animal cloning as well since the process basically creates superior breed of animals? Can I ask if you are an atheist btw? You seem to have a very deep hatred for the word "God". The whole point of Man Playing GOD to me is just outrageous. I would say the very moment man started to use his intelligence and created fire, thousands of years ago by rubbing stones together, that is when man started to play god (if you attribute the ability to start fire can only be done by god). This might sound funny but looking into the night sky at the stars is also playing god. I say this because if we keep looking at them then we start to question what they are and how far they are, then we end up where we are .... Playing GOD (which is what for Galileo & Copernicus did). If if we lose the ability to question then there is no difference between us and other animals with no intelligence. Hey but they also dont have religion or faith or God. They dont have intelligence to invent these! If you see an insect or a fly on you hand you just kill it. You dont think about taking the life off that insect is playing god. Coming to your point about boundaries, it all comes down to what features/abilities you attribute to GOD (probably it depends on your faith)? What only He/She/It can do and we cant do, and when we start doing things which previously we thought we cant do is it then we start playing god? Is it when we are crossing boundaries? How do you define extremes & boundaries in the present? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.