Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#81

Post by EvanAnderson »

rajin444 wrote: post #33
keiferski wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait until genetic modification becomes available on the black market. Then things will get really interesting.

Maybe we'll finally start addressing real unearned privilege: genetic. Pro sports players didn't do anything to earn the genetic makeup which accounts for a significant portion of their ability, yet they aren't asked to acknowledge it and take steps to reduce its impact.

Thinking of the film "Gattaca" (albeit it was about the opposite of reducing the impact of genetics).

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#82

Post by notJim »

rajin444 wrote: post #33
keiferski wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait until genetic modification becomes available on the black market. Then things will get really interesting.

Maybe we'll finally start addressing real unearned privilege: genetic. Pro sports players didn't do anything to earn the genetic makeup which accounts for a significant portion of their ability, yet they aren't asked to acknowledge it and take steps to reduce its impact.

Isn't the point of pro sports to find and admire those incredibly genetically-gifted people? I think trying to inject some kind of pure meritocratic framework into it fundamentally misunderstands the point of sports. To me in a way it's like appreciating a beautiful landscape.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#83

Post by bourgwaletariat »

tomcam wrote: post #74
newsbinator wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After all this time, I still have no idea how I feel about tortuous animal testing for medical breakthroughs. It's a trolley problem with an unknown number of people on Track A and an unknown number of animals on Track B. I don't even know how I feel about replacing animals in these experiments with human violent offenders. Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million ch…

I would like to understand downvotes for what seemed like relevant, thoughtful questions posed in this comment.

I had the same thought! Dang repeats the mantra, "bring curiosity" and here is a very curious post being downvoted. Also, the whole point of the downvote is to "disagree" but it doesn't seem to be used that way. Also, down voting limits the ability of the person "disagreed with" to communicate and share their position, which empowers the mob.

And furthermore, even talking about this topic is "meta discussion" which is discouraged here.

What does that say here? Disagreement is suppressed and self-reflection is not appreciated.

Let's just really think about that philosophy. It's an algorithm destined to echo chamber. A lack of diversity of thought.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#84

Post by brandmeyer »

barbazoo wrote: post #38
newsbinator wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After all this time, I still have no idea how I feel about tortuous animal testing for medical breakthroughs. It's a trolley problem with an unknown number of people on Track A and an unknown number of animals on Track B. I don't even know how I feel about replacing animals in these experiments with human violent offenders. Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million ch…

> Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million children's lives in the next 10 years? Not in a civilized society with a rule of law

Some closely related cases for thought:

How about experimenting on cell cultures harvested from an adult who was executed by the state?

How about experimenting on cell cultures harvested from an aborted human fetus?

In both cases, the source of the cells doesn't give consent, but their designated caretaker does.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#85

Post by rmah »

keiferski wrote: post #72
david-gpu wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also all for protecting animals... until grandma is sick and could be cured only if we experiment a little more on rats. When that happens the life of a rat or a million looks disposable.

The thing is, the overwhelming majority of animal testing is not for saving grandma. It's for testing a new brand of makeup.

I'd rather a thousand cute bunnies go blind (or worse) than one woman's eyesight be harmed by dangerous makeup.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#86

Post by FiatLuxDave »

zerealshadowban wrote: post #55

but where does the CO2 go? normally it's exhaled via the lungs

Good question. From the original Cell paper at https://www.cell.com/med/fulltext/S2666-6340(21)00153-7

Interestingly, the arterial pressure of CO2 tended to be decreased in the l-EVA group, presumably due to the excellent O2 - and CO2-carrying capacity of perfluorochemicals (50 mL O2/dL and 160–210 mL CO2/dL, respectively), while the arterial pH did not change in our experiment. These results indicate that perfluorochemicals also act as an adsorbent for elevated CO2, indicating a need for future follow-up studies of gas exchange mechanisms.

So, they speculate that some of it is absorbed by the perflourodecalin.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#87

Post by bourgwaletariat »

barbazoo wrote: post #38
newsbinator wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After all this time, I still have no idea how I feel about tortuous animal testing for medical breakthroughs. It's a trolley problem with an unknown number of people on Track A and an unknown number of animals on Track B. I don't even know how I feel about replacing animals in these experiments with human violent offenders. Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million ch…

> Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million children's lives in the next 10 years? Not in a civilized society with a rule of law

This is a terminological problem then, because many, many people argue "we" are neither civilized nor ruled by law. Furthermore, you could just write a law that says experimenting on serial killers is legal. You'd have to explain how that suddenly makes such a society uncivil, so either civility is the requirement or the law is the requirement, but not both.

So really, you're saying, "not according to our laws" which wasn't the question. It was a moral philosophical question, so your answer doesn't really address the question. It's not even on the same plane. Your answer is just a glib dismissal of the question's philosophical merit.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#88

Post by armatav »

ravenstine wrote: post #26

So if you're performing CPR, could it increase the chance of survival if someone else performed mouth-to-anus on the person? Maybe in the future first aid kits won't just come with CPR masks but also anal dilators and a brush.

Now this is a quality comment on the speculation of new and advanced technology for saving peoples lives.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#90

Post by Brentward »

ghastmaster wrote: post #77

I'm curious which PFC they are using. A cursory search indicates that PFCs are hazardous to our health. Benzene in particular.

Benzene is not a PFC as it only contains carbon and hydrogen, not the fluorine that puts the F in PFC. According to Wikipedia [1], "fluoroalkanes are generally inert and non-toxic" and "do not bioaccumulate." That was surprising to me too, but apparently they have many established medical uses, including liquid breathing, which makes this application seem more reasonable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorocarbon

Post reply on HN