How Americans View New Technologies That ‘Enhance’ Human Abilities

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Although most people aren't too keen on some of these technologies, many believe that they will come to pass in the next fifty years. Just by a show of hands, how many of you believe artificially made organs will be routinely available for transplant by the year 2066?

While the public expresses more worry than enthusiasm about human enhancements, most expect many enhancements will happen within the next 50 years. Fully 81% of U.S. adults expect artificially made organs to be routinely available for transplant by the year 2066. Roughly two-thirds (66%) of Americans say scientists will probably or definitely cure most forms of cancer within 50 years.
 
Let me know when they cure psoriasis.

By then I figure something else will have been discovered/developed and we will just laugh at this concept.
 
DrLobotomy said:
Let me know when they cure psoriasis.

By then I figure something else will have been discovered/developed and we will just laugh at this concept.
Click to expand...
While not cured, autoimmune treatment options are tremendously further along than they were 30 years ago. Give it another 30 years and I wouldn't be surprised to see a flat out 100% effective treatment, even if its ongoing and not technically a "cure"
 
define organs. We already routinely do artificial cornea transplants. They are harvested during organ donation, and lack of donor corneas are why we made the artificial ones. Prosthetic technologies are advancing rapidly, and they are developing artifical skin for tactile feedback on the more advanced prosthetics. Then there's pacemakers and such. We have a solid foundation, and we are poised to make some big leaps in the near future, so 2066 for them to be fairly common isn't out of the question. I think that target is at greater risk form how we manage our economy than our ability to advance technology to do the job.

Probably the biggest risk to the whole list is infection management. We are breeding superbugs and no super antibiotics, so we may slam on the brakes just due to the risk involved.
 
Medical technology benefits greatly from advancements in electronics so it is certainly possible. The improvements in small size computing capabilities have given us enhanced artificial limbs. The improvements in computing overall gave us the map of the human and other genomes. Advanced computing capabilities also allow for more effective virtual simulations and experimentation before they ever touch an animal or human. Since we are only 50 years past the first human heart transplant (which was the stuff of Frankenstein 100 years ago), I think the next 50 years could change medicine in ways we can't even imagine (including varying degrees of augmentation). As an aside, humans are open to many forms of augmentation (wheel chairs, eye glasses, hearing aids, etc). They just need time to adjust to newer forms of augmentation.
 
I think that the majority of these things will happen long before 2066. Cloned organs are probably only 10 years away, at least livers. Cancer cures are probably the most far-fetched thing here, we're not even sure you can cure cancer and embryo gene manipulation will certainly soon be happening, if it's ethical for things other than serious genetic diseases is a different matter. Implanted sensors are more of a "is it really the best solution" type thing. But I'm sure that everything but the cancer cure, will definitely be possible by 2066, even if we don't do it.
 
My view is this... we're already overcrowded as it is, the last thing we need is to enhance the length of human lives. While yes there is still plenty of land available no one lives there, where everyone lives there's just too damn many people, what defines two damn many people? Having to get your water from hundreds of miles away because locally there isn't enough pretty much hits that nail on the head. That said, any sort of enhancements will not most likely not be covered by medical insurance so only the rich will get cyber awesomeness, HOWEVER due to the strength of voting of the old folks, medicare will cover enhancements so all the other taxpayers will now end up paying a boatload more so granny's mobility scooter will now have pneumatic leg assist features.
 
This survey doesn't address the elephant in the room: that such medical enhancements would be available only to the class that needs it the least.
 
evilsofa said:
This survey doesn't address the elephant in the room: that such medical enhancements would be available only to the class that needs it the least.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the wealthy and powerful will get this while the poor do not, or that those with excellent health will augment themselves to make them superior, while the disabled who need them the most don't have access? I am not sure that either of those would be true. There is always some class who is not able to get the highest levels of medical care but those classes have shrunk tremendously (at least in the developed world). I suspect the bigger elephant will be warfare and weaponization. If augmentation works then augmented soldiers could change warfare substantially.
 
We're too focused on medical treatment instead of prevention. We should be studying ways to prevent organ failure and cellular deterioration. Figure out ways to enhance our immune systems so we can detoxify and avoid waste accumulation.

I think it's perfectly ethical to genetically enhance ourselves.
 
sfsuphysics said:
My view is this... we're already overcrowded as it is, the last thing we need is to enhance the length of human lives. While yes there is still plenty of land available no one lives there, where everyone lives there's just too damn many people, what defines two damn many people? Having to get your water from hundreds of miles away because locally there isn't enough pretty much hits that nail on the head. That said, any sort of enhancements will not most likely not be covered by medical insurance so only the rich will get cyber awesomeness, HOWEVER due to the strength of voting of the old folks, medicare will cover enhancements so all the other taxpayers will now end up paying a boatload more so granny's mobility scooter will now have pneumatic leg assist features.
Click to expand...
Overcrowding is a good thing, it will force us to expand vertically and extraterrestrially. We can also try to incentivize the populace to living in less crowded areas by creating jobs in sparse zones. We can do that by giving businesses lower taxes in less populated areas.
 
Scizyr said:
Overcrowding is a good thing, it will force us to expand vertically and extraterrestrially. We can also try to incentivize the populace to living in less crowded areas by creating jobs in sparse zones. We can do that by giving businesses lower taxes in less populated areas.
Click to expand...
We also have the Seas to exploit as our technology improves. Time for Rapture or Atlantis.
 
Fifty years? I like to read a lot of tech news, and compute tech isn't the only one. Medical technology is evolving much faster than people here like to think.

I would consider cancer cured already with immunotherapies. There are already alternatives being explored as well.



I give organ transplants 10 years, but only for most organs and not all. Turns out the heart is really complicated. But for simple things kidneys and livers, I can certainly see that happening in 10 years. The problem is making a structure for new stem cells to grow on, and so far they've been using pig organs bleached to death to accomplish this. Either that or human organs bleached to death and then using stem cells to replace the dead cells. I kinda hope they would just 3D print the organs instead of waiting for more car accidents.

I don't want computer chips in my body, and I doubt many people would.

I'd like a future where we don't need a constant stream of medications. Making good use of that anti aging technology and CRIPR so that we don't survive off of over priced medications that do more harm than good.

Speaking of CRIPR, I do expect us to not only prevent birth defects with gene editing, but go as far as edit full grown humans. I don't expect that to be a thing until the 2030's and by then we'll be gene editing our bodies to not only be healthier but also have bigger muscles without exercise, bigger penis or breasts, and the hair color of our choice without hair dye. But now you have a new problem where most likely these technologies will be exclusive to the rich, and there's going to be a clear separation of intelligent good looking people between the rich vs the poor.
 
The problem is there is no, or at least less, money in curing than treatment and money is of course the incentive for everything.
 
Meh l'll probably die in a car crash, avoided two just today, before any of this comes to light. But it's cool to think of science fiction as reality one day.
 
I'm up for any of these things. Depending on your cancer, if it's PDL1 expressive, you basically have a cure. It's called Keytruda.

4HP5jJx.jpg
 
I'm betting in 50 years there will be Robocops/Borgs running amok.

If no one pops the nukes before then.
 
kbrickley said:
Are you saying that the wealthy and powerful will get this while the poor do not, or that those with excellent health will augment themselves to make them superior, while the disabled who need them the most don't have access?
Click to expand...

The wealthy and powerful tend to be in excellent health and not disabled, so what is this "or" that you give me?
 
I need a memory enhancement. Actually, screw that. I want replacement memories like Total Recall.
 
kbrickley said:
Are you saying that the wealthy and powerful will get this while the poor do not, or that those with excellent health will augment themselves to make them superior, while the disabled who need them the most don't have access? I am not sure that either of those would be true. There is always some class who is not able to get the highest levels of medical care but those classes have shrunk tremendously (at least in the developed world). I suspect the bigger elephant will be warfare and weaponization. If augmentation works then augmented soldiers could change warfare substantially.
Click to expand...
The size of this class is irrelevant if they have enough money. So if we come out with an anti-aging treatment, but it cost 10,000x times what the average person can afford, you think that won't be a successful product, especially if it's something that can't be easily reproduced by another company? Hell, even right now in the USA, there's a direct correlation between your lifespan and income level partially due to the treatment you can afford. There are reasons medical expenses are the #1 cause of bankruptcy.
 
Last edited:
tetris42 said:
The size of this class is irrelevant if they have enough money. So if we come out with an anti-aging treatment, but it cost 10,000x times what the average person can afford, you think that won't be a successful product, especially if it's something that can't be easily reproduced by another company? Hell, even right now in the USA, there's a direct correlation between your lifespan and income level partially due to the treatment you can afford. There are reasons medical expenses are the #1 cause of bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
This is a compounded issue. For one, new therapies/drugs make old ones obsolete. Lots of R&D goes into developing therapies/drugs and to have it superseded doesn't sit well with companies. For example the immunotherapies are considered last ditch effort after radiation and chemotherapy has failed. Instead of exploring immunotherapy first, people need to go through the horrible radiation and chemo process, probably to continue to make money with these therapies. And it'll be a while before immunotherapy is accepted by insurance.

Second problem is that aging is not a disease. First big anti aging technology is senolytic therapies. It works so well that companies have started up to develop Senolytics. This is something everyone can benefit from, but how would this get distributed? $100,000 pills? Would insurance cover it, even though aging is not a disease?

Left mouse is normal aged mouse without senescent cells removed, while the right one has had them removed.

JanvanDeursen.jpg
 
Just give me an android body with replaceable parts and a raid 1 memory so I stop forgetting stuff, and some hot babes that don't get old either.
I+Mudd+4.png
 
I'm old fashioned and just hope I die before most people are more machine than man.
 
I would not mind if I had a computer "co-processor" per se. The only thing I wouldn't want is for it to be able to interface with any wireless network. Last thing I need is to be thinking about titties, suddenly get a porn live stream, then given some internet virus that has me go into a seizure after involuntarily pulling my dick out of my pants.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Steve Jobs.

He ded.
Click to expand...
He was also crazy, and refused certain cancer treatments. He refused surgery cause he "didn't want [his] body to be opened". For a while he only ate apples and carrots, and then only ate fruit until he died. And because he was a vegan he believe he didn't need to shower as much and avoided deodorant. He wasn't exactly smart, and no amount of money will save you from killing yourself.

One's demise is always one's own making
 
anr11 said:
The problem is there is no, or at least less, money in curing than treatment and money is of course the incentive for everything.
Click to expand...
This is by far one of the dumbest, most ignorant myths that keeps being perpetuated by people across the internet.

Think about it for one moment. If there was no money in cures then why do we have cures at all for any diseases today? Why are there cures still being developed? If one company stops at a mere treatment why is there still research being done for a cure by other companies? You bet your ass if someone finds a cure for something you are going to have dozens of companies lined up trying to get exclusive rights to it then milk that for every penny its worth. A cure will always be in more demand than a mere treatment, and thus there will always be someone seeking out the profit to attain it.

If there is a disease with enough impact, there is always money in a cure. If one company thinks there isn't any money in it, there will always be another that does.
 
Man, I don't know about mechanical augmentation, lots of swelling involved. Just give me a suit of Power Armor.
 
DukenukemX said:
Fifty years? I like to read a lot of tech news, and compute tech isn't the only one. Medical technology is evolving much faster than people here like to think.

I would consider cancer cured already with immunotherapies. There are already alternatives being explored as well.



I give organ transplants 10 years, but only for most organs and not all. Turns out the heart is really complicated. But for simple things kidneys and livers, I can certainly see that happening in 10 years. The problem is making a structure for new stem cells to grow on, and so far they've been using pig organs bleached to death to accomplish this. Either that or human organs bleached to death and then using stem cells to replace the dead cells. I kinda hope they would just 3D print the organs instead of waiting for more car accidents.

I don't want computer chips in my body, and I doubt many people would.

I'd like a future where we don't need a constant stream of medications. Making good use of that anti aging technology and CRIPR so that we don't survive off of over priced medications that do more harm than good.

Speaking of CRIPR, I do expect us to not only prevent birth defects with gene editing, but go as far as edit full grown humans. I don't expect that to be a thing until the 2030's and by then we'll be gene editing our bodies to not only be healthier but also have bigger muscles without exercise, bigger penis or breasts, and the hair color of our choice without hair dye. But now you have a new problem where most likely these technologies will be exclusive to the rich, and there's going to be a clear separation of intelligent good looking people between the rich vs the poor.
Click to expand...

It's clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR, pronounced crisper), not CRIPR. I thought it may have been a mistake, but you said it twice.
 
As a person who has been legally blind from birth, let me tell you... I'm ALL about these kinds of advances. I'm hoping that one day there might be a new treatment plus technology that could restore my vision to beyond "normal".
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
This is by far one of the dumbest, most ignorant myths that keeps being perpetuated by people across the internet.

Think about it for one moment. If there was no money in cures then why do we have cures at all for any diseases today? Why are there cures still being developed? If one company stops at a mere treatment why is there still research being done for a cure by other companies? You bet your ass if someone finds a cure for something you are going to have dozens of companies lined up trying to get exclusive rights to it then milk that for every penny its worth. A cure will always be in more demand than a mere treatment, and thus there will always be someone seeking out the profit to attain it.

If there is a disease with enough impact, there is always money in a cure. If one company thinks there isn't any money in it, there will always be another that does.
Click to expand...
Large amount of it is regulated by FDA, which limits how quickly someone can bring a treatment to the market. Which is why companies like BIOVIVA has moved outside of USA where they have more freedom to explore treatments. It also costs a fortune to get a drug or treatment approved. I believe Japan got sick of this and removed a layer of drug/treatment approval.

Talyrius said:
It's clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR, pronounced crisper), not CRIPR. I thought it may have been a mistake, but you said it twice.
Click to expand...

Yea no, it's a typo. I also know there's an alternative method to CRISPR that the Chinese discovered as well, and its open like open source. Though we'll see how far that'll go. CRISPR right has a lot of legality around it.
 
DukenukemX said:
Large amount of it is regulated by FDA, which limits how quickly someone can bring a treatment to the market. Which is why companies like BIOVIVA has moved outside of USA where they have more freedom to explore treatments. It also costs a fortune to get a drug or treatment approved. I believe Japan got sick of this and removed a layer of drug/treatment approval.
Click to expand...
Thanks for helping prove my point. :cool:
If there wasn't money in a cure, they wouldn't be willing to pack up and leave the USA so they could research and get the product to market even faster.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Thanks for helping prove my point. :cool:
If there wasn't money in a cure, they wouldn't be willing to pack up and leave the USA so they could research and get the product to market even faster.
Click to expand...
The market will adjust, as it always has. But looking for a cure for anything is funny business because there's a lot of R&D that goes into it and that usually falls into the hands of Universities. Gene editing is out best bet to cure diseases and people are already afraid of custom made babies that look like super models, think like Einstein, and perform like Olympic medal athletes. So research into this could be delayed like stem cell technology was delayed for 8 years thank to George Bush.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Gene editing is out best bet to cure diseases and people are already afraid of custom made babies that look like super models, think like Einstein, and perform like Olympic medal athletes.
Click to expand...

I am less concerned about that than I am about gene programming errors. Ask a programmer - any programmer - how often they've introduced or exposed new bugs by fixing bugs. While I don't know enough about computer programming and gene editing to compare the two myself, I'm assuming that gene editing is far, far more complicated than computer programming, not for the least of reasons that someone seems to have neglected to comment the DNA code properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top