251–260 of 344 posts
Probably not feasible without some genetic re-engineering to design out vulnerabilities to common diseases. That's how aging will probably be solved. There's a big debug time problem, though. It takes about two generations to be sure you got it right. We'll probably have very long lived mice decades before it works for humans. (Many cancers in mice can be cured now. This doesn't translate to humans.) Then there will…
I'm glad they're putting money into medical research, but I kinda roll my eyes when people make big claims about curing X, especially when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer" or in this case, "all diseases." AI/ML has barely scratched the surface of its potential in medicine, however, I find it naive to think that you can throw AI/ML at any random disease and always get a cure. Even after a century. Will we…
General-purpose nanorobotics would pretty much allow us to do arbitrary medical procedures with cell-level accuracy. Cancer would be easy. Modifying brain structure would be easy. Pretty much everything would be easy.
Summary
1. Lack of rigidity, excessive stickiness of molecules (Van der Waals force), constant random interactions (Brownian motion) at the microscale of cells means mechanistic intuitions from the macroscale don't apply.
2. High surface area (combined with VdW force) causes problems related to friction and energy dissipation.
I know it's more of a western problem, but it would be good if someone could find some real solutions to the obesity crisis. If you ask many GPs in the west they will tell you that a majority of illnesses they address are related to weight and diet. With an aging, increasingly overweight adult population alongside a sharp rise in child obesity come big consequences for health care over the next half century. Im not s…
For starter, stop drinking liters of cold drink and beer every day. If you really need it, I will create an app for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
General-purpose nanorobotics would pretty much allow us to do arbitrary medical procedures with cell-level accuracy. Cancer would be easy. Modifying brain structure would be easy. Pretty much everything would be easy.
See chapter 3 ("Nanotechnology will not lead to super-abundance") of Against Transhumanism for a good argument for why this isn't so simple: http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/201... Summary 1. Lack of rigidity, excessive stickiness of molecules (Van der Waals force), constant random interactions (Brownian motion) at the microscale of cells means mechanistic intuitions from the macroscale don't…
What a boring criticism! All of the things he mentions are easily approachable engineering challenges. His conclusion seems to be "mechanical engineering as with gears and pulleys won't work with nanobots". Duh! No one claimed otherwise.
> mechanistic intuitions about the microscale don't apply.
Obviously. Why would you or the author think nanotechnology optimists don't know this? Half the reason we don't have nanobots is because we don't yet have the engineering expertise and practical tools for these scales. The other half is that we're still working out efficient 3D nanofabrication. They are related problems. These are not physically insurmountable issues (as demonstrated thoroughly by organic life). There are a hundred different fields of study that are slowly eating away at the edges of the general purpose nanofabrication problem.
I'm glad they're putting money into medical research, but I kinda roll my eyes when people make big claims about curing X, especially when X is something incredibly broad like "cancer" or in this case, "all diseases." AI/ML has barely scratched the surface of its potential in medicine, however, I find it naive to think that you can throw AI/ML at any random disease and always get a cure. Even after a century. Will we…
"yes we can!" built the atomic bomb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just from a data volume perspective cancer and atomic bombs are magnitudes apart. Throw in the fact that cancer evolves and understanding those mutations requires unraveling millions of years of evolution and you've got a doozy.
I strongly believe that our analytic capabilities (as a species) have grown by orders of magnitude since we built the bomb. My entire point was that the bomb wasn't a given in it's day (in spite of what the retrospective belief seems to be), just because something is out of our grasp now doesn't mean we won't reach it if we try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People would have rolled their eyes, if someone said. I wanted to connect the world. I want to connect virutally everyone, where you can just reach anyone at anyplace at any time for cheap. 30 yrs ago, in a different part of the world. My father had to catch a bus from a village to the city, then catch a plane to a major city to make international phone call to the US to his business partners. Today, people in that s…
It seems to me like the biggest things are impossible to see with a "normal" outlook. It's as if you either can't see the big thing, or you see it in a fantasy world, a fiction of some kind (science or otherwise). Take connecting the entire world. Even after the technology existed and had been deployed (the very early system that gave rise to the internet as we know it), people didn't look at that early version conne…