First let me start by saying that I know VERY little about any sort of physics, and have not taken any physics classes. (I am in the 10th grade).
Now, if nanotechnology is what I believe it to be ('modification' on an atomic level) then could it not be used to repair the human body, or rid it of a disease?
Lets say I have cancer, and aids and I've just been shot and stabbed... Could (whatever would actually do the modification ?nanobots?) not just come and 1) Destroy the cancer 2) Destroy the aids virus 3) Repair the bullet and knife wounds.
Of course I know that even if what has just been said IS possible, it is far from what is current.
Also, to be able to repair the more advanced parts of our body (brain...) we would probably have to have extensive knowledge as to how it works, and take care not to destroy memory in the repair process.
Please remember, that what I say MAY be the dumbest thing you ever hear, but please respect my novice, and answer my questions accurately.
Have a look at this Unbounding the Future, Chapter 10 - Nanomedicine. It's part of the book Unbounding the Future, largely be Eric Drexler. It explains a lot of what is thought possible with nanotechnology.
With respect to keeping yourself younger looking as well as keeping elderly people in a good healthy condition an appropriate diet can be a marginal fountain of youth. Drinking raw eggs, putting Albumen (egg-white) in the coffee of people in their 80's will keep them strong and give their skin a less wrinkly clearer younger complexion because albumen is pure Protein. Old people have to have plenty of protein.
QUOTE (brent.tc+Jan 10 2008, 11:29 PM)
Now, if nanotechnology is what I believe it to be ('modification' on an atomic level) then could it not be used to repair the human body, or rid it of a disease?
Lets say I have cancer, and aids and I've just been shot and stabbed... Could (whatever would actually do the modification ?nanobots?) not just come and 1) Destroy the cancer 2) Destroy the aids virus 3) Repair the bullet and knife wounds.
Yep, it certainly could. However, as you said, we're pretty far from that kind of technology. But we have a few simple medical things involving nanotechnology:
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=1156.php
http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/16591/
- Gehn
it's unreal. nanothechnology never will be better than live nature. If human body would be worth than some nanobody then human would be nanohuman. All molecules best combination are already taken by DNA, proteins and over 'live" stuff. nanorobots or whatever will be worth by functionality than hiv virus and nanorobots will lose in fight with hiv virus and with over diseas. It's like robots would loose in survival to compare with humans, if androids are possible at all. My theory claims that human and virus is perfect for survive, but with "bugs". It's like windows95 or Windows98 have more bugs but faster than xp or vista. So human if would be very resistant to virus than he maybe would be low inteligent or weak by force or short live living, etc, bad adaptation to nature and so on. All vires which can be cured are already cured and which can't be cured - will never be cured.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 12 2008, 07:07 PM)
it's unreal. nanotechnology never will be better than live nature. If human body would be worth than some nanobody then human would be nanohuman. All molecules best combination are already taken by DNA, proteins and over 'live" stuff. nanorobots or whatever will be worth by functionality than HIV virus and nanorobots will lose in fight with HIV virus and with over disease. It's like robots would loose in survival to compare with humans, if androids are possible at all. My theory claims that human and virus is perfect for survive, but with "bugs". It's like windows95 or Windows98 have more bugs but faster than xp or vista. So human if would be very resistant to virus than he maybe would be low intelligent or weak by force or short live living, etc, bad adaptation to nature and so on. All vi res which can be cured are already cured and which can't be cured - will never be cured.
DavidD, I did not mean that we would be come immune to disease, but rather, we Will be repaired by the effects of the disease. And I do NOT believe that the human body is as good as it gets, if it were, everyone would be the same... Perfection = Perfection all the way through.
Thanks all for the input.
DavidD, I did not mean that we would be come immune to disease, but rather, we Will be repaired by the effects of the disease. And I do NOT believe that the human body is as good as it gets, if it were, everyone would be the same... Perfection = Perfection all the way through.
Thanks all for the input.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jan 12 2008, 07:07 PM)
So human if would be very resistant to virus than he maybe would be low inteligent
I shouldn't worry if I were you, as less intellect than yours is simply impossible.
I shouldn't worry if I were you, as less intellect than yours is simply impossible.
QUOTE (Count Alucard+Jan 12 2008, 09:42 PM)
I shouldn't worry if I were you, as less intellect than yours is simply impossible.
Much agreed.
Much agreed.
human body I guess only possible improve through human evolution - natural selection, but for this need another milions or bilions years, but I think sun will stop shining after about milion years and so humans evolution will be over. Human body improvement is probabilistic computation and for this computation nature have milions and bilions years. My prediction is that possible that after milions years humans body will be biger, becouse elephant body is big and he can live longer than bear... It's hard to say does in future human brain size will grew, becouse now all information is in book and for human brain need just copy paste for needed subject. And all information for example about chipmaking or cars making is accumulated in 'books' by experiments and don't need to invent bike, just need to do improvemnt - it's faster evolution than human body, but it's much less dificult than human. Maybe computer processor has the same computation power like human brain, but human brain has very msuch interconections with eyes, ears, body receptors and computer has only few wires, which working at high speed, but for intellect need many wires which working slow instead few fast nad so for human it's dificult to made many wires and probably that's becouse AI never will be created... Another theory is that human brain is more powerfull than processor and it's becouse nature making brains in smarter and better way with diseases and over stuff.
QUOTE (brent.tc+Jan 10 2008, 11:29 PM)
First let me start by saying that I know VERY little about any sort of physics, and have not taken any physics classes. (I am in the 10th grade).
Now, if nanotechnology is what I believe it to be ('modification' on an atomic level) then could it not be used to repair the human body, or rid it of a disease?
Lets say I have cancer, and aids and I've just been shot and stabbed... Could (whatever would actually do the modification ?nanobots?) not just come and 1) Destroy the cancer 2) Destroy the aids virus 3) Repair the bullet and knife wounds.
Of course I know that even if what has just been said IS possible, it is far from what is current.
Also, to be able to repair the more advanced parts of our body (brain...) we would probably have to have extensive knowledge as to how it works, and take care not to destroy memory in the repair process.
Please remember, that what I say MAY be the dumbest thing you ever hear, but please respect my novice, and answer my questions accurately.
It has endless possibility. But what it needs to happen are enough people who are really, really good at chemistry (and similar sciences) to apply themselves and work hard for solutions. These advances will only happen if there's a critical mass of smart people working on the problems. And we're going to need these people about ten years from now
Now, if nanotechnology is what I believe it to be ('modification' on an atomic level) then could it not be used to repair the human body, or rid it of a disease?
Lets say I have cancer, and aids and I've just been shot and stabbed... Could (whatever would actually do the modification ?nanobots?) not just come and 1) Destroy the cancer 2) Destroy the aids virus 3) Repair the bullet and knife wounds.
Of course I know that even if what has just been said IS possible, it is far from what is current.
Also, to be able to repair the more advanced parts of our body (brain...) we would probably have to have extensive knowledge as to how it works, and take care not to destroy memory in the repair process.
Please remember, that what I say MAY be the dumbest thing you ever hear, but please respect my novice, and answer my questions accurately.
It has endless possibility. But what it needs to happen are enough people who are really, really good at chemistry (and similar sciences) to apply themselves and work hard for solutions. These advances will only happen if there's a critical mass of smart people working on the problems. And we're going to need these people about ten years from now
QUOTE (brent.tc+Jan 10 2008, 11:29 PM)
Now, if nanotechnology is what I believe it to be ('modification' on an atomic level) then could it not be used to repair the human body, or rid it of a disease?
Lets say I have cancer, and aids and I've just been shot and stabbed... Could (whatever would actually do the modification ?nanobots?) not just come and 1) Destroy the cancer 2) Destroy the aids virus 3) Repair the bullet and knife wounds.
What is often forgotten in the discussion of nanotechnology is that living tissue is already swarming with nanobots. They already do what they can to repair damage, defend against viruses and cancer, etc., and if these tasks were easier than they actually are, evolution would have already come up with better methods. Claims made by nantechnologists are often grandiose and way overblown, mainly because they are looking for money. Having said that, nanotechnology will play a role, not by replacing medicine but by converging with it. If I were to place any short-term bets in the race, I'd place my money on those nanobots known as stem cells. In the meantime, wear sunscreen, a floppy hat, a condom, and a bulletproof vest.
Lets say I have cancer, and aids and I've just been shot and stabbed... Could (whatever would actually do the modification ?nanobots?) not just come and 1) Destroy the cancer 2) Destroy the aids virus 3) Repair the bullet and knife wounds.
What is often forgotten in the discussion of nanotechnology is that living tissue is already swarming with nanobots. They already do what they can to repair damage, defend against viruses and cancer, etc., and if these tasks were easier than they actually are, evolution would have already come up with better methods. Claims made by nantechnologists are often grandiose and way overblown, mainly because they are looking for money. Having said that, nanotechnology will play a role, not by replacing medicine but by converging with it. If I were to place any short-term bets in the race, I'd place my money on those nanobots known as stem cells. In the meantime, wear sunscreen, a floppy hat, a condom, and a bulletproof vest.
Brent, your questions are not ill-conceived. I was one of the reviewers for significant parts of Volumes I and II of Nanomedicine. These are college/med school level textbooks outlining the various capabilities of nanotechnology applied to medicine. The author of these books, Robert Freitas, has written many articles describing various capabilities of different types of nanorobots. All of these may be reviewed at www.rfreitas.com.
These are peer-reviewed articles which have been accepted in various medical journals and so they can be trusted as valid (compared with comments by some physorg.com readers).
Now, with respect to some other comments. It is correct to state that *all* of biology *is* nanotechnology. All life is assembled atom by atom or small molecule by small molecule. Drexler even points this out in his first PNAS paper. However biology is based on wet floppy nanotechnology while the kind discussed by Drexler and Freitas is dry stiff nanotechnology. Making the transition between them is not an easy task.
It is improper to view eukaryotic biology (plants, animals, algae, etc.) as being based on "nanorobobots" as the eukaryotic cells have dimensions an order of magnitude larger than those envisioned for nanorobots. Nanorobots should be viewed as the size of most bacteria. And it is highly undesirable to have bacteria circulating in the human body.
Now with respect to aging. We are beginning to understand what causes intrinsic aging and there are nanorobots conceived with capabilities to address them. Stem cells are a good intermediate step but the ultimate solution will likely require the capabilities that nanorobots can provide and stem cells cannot.
These are peer-reviewed articles which have been accepted in various medical journals and so they can be trusted as valid (compared with comments by some physorg.com readers).
Now, with respect to some other comments. It is correct to state that *all* of biology *is* nanotechnology. All life is assembled atom by atom or small molecule by small molecule. Drexler even points this out in his first PNAS paper. However biology is based on wet floppy nanotechnology while the kind discussed by Drexler and Freitas is dry stiff nanotechnology. Making the transition between them is not an easy task.
It is improper to view eukaryotic biology (plants, animals, algae, etc.) as being based on "nanorobobots" as the eukaryotic cells have dimensions an order of magnitude larger than those envisioned for nanorobots. Nanorobots should be viewed as the size of most bacteria. And it is highly undesirable to have bacteria circulating in the human body.
Now with respect to aging. We are beginning to understand what causes intrinsic aging and there are nanorobots conceived with capabilities to address them. Stem cells are a good intermediate step but the ultimate solution will likely require the capabilities that nanorobots can provide and stem cells cannot.
QUOTE (barakn+Jan 14 2008, 08:51 AM)
In the meantime, wear sunscreen, a floppy hat, a condom, and a bulletproof vest.
All at once?
All at once?
QUOTE
What is often forgotten in the discussion of nanotechnology is that living tissue is already swarming with nanobots.
That is a good point. Life is a good example that mollecular engineering is possible.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What is often forgotten in the discussion of nanotechnology is that living tissue is already swarming with nanobots. |
That is a good point. Life is a good example that mollecular engineering is possible.
They already do what they can to repair damage, defend against viruses and cancer, etc., and if these tasks were easier than they actually are, evolution would have already come up with better methods.
They already do what they can to repair damage, defend against viruses and cancer, etc., and if these tasks were easier than they actually are, evolution would have already come up with better methods.
I don't agree with you here. Evolution is a fairly random approach, though it is provably effective. Unfortunately for us as individuals, evolution is about species survival not individual survival. It is not to a species advantage, even ours, for organisms to live too long.
QUOTE
Claims made by nantechnologists are often grandiose and way overblown
Agreed, but accurate predictions of any future technology is difficult.
QUOTE (rbradbury+Jan 13 2008, 08:46 PM)
Brent, your questions are not ill-conceived. I was one of the reviewers for significant parts of Volumes I and II of Nanomedicine. These are college/med school level textbooks outlining the various capabilities of nanotechnology applied to medicine. The author of these books, Robert Freitas, has written many articles describing various capabilities of different types of nanorobots. All of these may be reviewed at www.rfreitas.com.
These are peer-reviewed articles which have been accepted in various medical journals and so they can be trusted as valid (compared with comments by some physorg.com readers).
Now, with respect to some other comments. It is correct to state that *all* of biology *is* nanotechnology. All life is assembled atom by atom or small molecule by small molecule. Drexler even points this out in his first PNAS paper. However biology is based on wet floppy nanotechnology while the kind discussed by Drexler and Freitas is dry stiff nanotechnology. Making the transition between them is not an easy task.
It is improper to view eukaryotic biology (plants, animals, algae, etc.) as being based on "nanorobobots" as the eukaryotic cells have dimensions an order of magnitude larger than those envisioned for nanorobots. Nanorobots should be viewed as the size of most bacteria. And it is highly undesirable to have bacteria circulating in the human body.
Now with respect to aging. We are beginning to understand what causes intrinsic aging and there are nanorobots conceived with capabilities to address them. Stem cells are a good intermediate step but the ultimate solution will likely require the capabilities that nanorobots can provide and stem cells cannot.
If you look at Wiki's nanorobotics article you'll see them define nanorobots as having sizes of 0.1-10 micrometers. Since a red blood cell is 6-8 μm and a platelet is 1.5–3.0 μm, eukaryotic cells definitely can fall in the right size range. OTOH, the Wiki article on nanotechnology says "Nanotechnology refers broadly to a field of applied science and technology whose unifying theme is the control of matter on the atomic and molecular scale, normally 1 to 100 nanometers...." That's what I find so frustrating about the field. It is so new and there are so many cranks, fanboys, and fraudsters attracted to it in addition to legitimate researchers , interested members of the public, and science fiction writers that that not only has it not defined itself very well, it is full of wild claims and misinformation. Robert Freitas might be a legitimate character in the field (note he has no degrees in any biology- or medicine-related field besides psychology), but in his page you linked to I saw this: "Contribute to the IMM Freitas Research Fund." Somehow it all comes down to money.
Another disturbing trend is the recent discovery that some nanoparticles are toxic, like carbon nanotubes. It's hard to see how much progress in the medical benefits of nanoparticles there will be when there still isn't that much research on their hazards.
Your comments on aging are highly speculative, especially considering how stem cell research has been stifled. And when you say "will likely require the capabilities that nanorobots can provide" when nanorobots aren't currently providing any anti-aging capabilities yet, all I can do is roll my eyes
. The fountain of youth has been full snake oil before. Beware.
These are peer-reviewed articles which have been accepted in various medical journals and so they can be trusted as valid (compared with comments by some physorg.com readers).
Now, with respect to some other comments. It is correct to state that *all* of biology *is* nanotechnology. All life is assembled atom by atom or small molecule by small molecule. Drexler even points this out in his first PNAS paper. However biology is based on wet floppy nanotechnology while the kind discussed by Drexler and Freitas is dry stiff nanotechnology. Making the transition between them is not an easy task.
It is improper to view eukaryotic biology (plants, animals, algae, etc.) as being based on "nanorobobots" as the eukaryotic cells have dimensions an order of magnitude larger than those envisioned for nanorobots. Nanorobots should be viewed as the size of most bacteria. And it is highly undesirable to have bacteria circulating in the human body.
Now with respect to aging. We are beginning to understand what causes intrinsic aging and there are nanorobots conceived with capabilities to address them. Stem cells are a good intermediate step but the ultimate solution will likely require the capabilities that nanorobots can provide and stem cells cannot.
If you look at Wiki's nanorobotics article you'll see them define nanorobots as having sizes of 0.1-10 micrometers. Since a red blood cell is 6-8 μm and a platelet is 1.5–3.0 μm, eukaryotic cells definitely can fall in the right size range. OTOH, the Wiki article on nanotechnology says "Nanotechnology refers broadly to a field of applied science and technology whose unifying theme is the control of matter on the atomic and molecular scale, normally 1 to 100 nanometers...." That's what I find so frustrating about the field. It is so new and there are so many cranks, fanboys, and fraudsters attracted to it in addition to legitimate researchers , interested members of the public, and science fiction writers that that not only has it not defined itself very well, it is full of wild claims and misinformation. Robert Freitas might be a legitimate character in the field (note he has no degrees in any biology- or medicine-related field besides psychology), but in his page you linked to I saw this: "Contribute to the IMM Freitas Research Fund." Somehow it all comes down to money.
Another disturbing trend is the recent discovery that some nanoparticles are toxic, like carbon nanotubes. It's hard to see how much progress in the medical benefits of nanoparticles there will be when there still isn't that much research on their hazards.
Your comments on aging are highly speculative, especially considering how stem cell research has been stifled. And when you say "will likely require the capabilities that nanorobots can provide" when nanorobots aren't currently providing any anti-aging capabilities yet, all I can do is roll my eyes
. The fountain of youth has been full snake oil before. Beware.
N O M
QUOTE
QUOTE (barakn @ Jan 14 2008, 08:51 AM)
It depends on what your habits are
. It just sounded funnier than "lock the door and check for radon."
N O M
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (barakn @ Jan 14 2008, 08:51 AM)In the meantime, wear sunscreen, a floppy hat, a condom, and a bulletproof vest. All at once? |
It depends on what your habits are
. It just sounded funnier than "lock the door and check for radon."N O M
QUOTE
QUOTE (barakn @ Jan 14 2008, 08:51 AM)
A valid point. I'm sure nanotechnology will come up with things that our bodies are not currently doing for us. I'm just asking for a healthy dose of critical thinking and skepticism when considering some of the more outlandish claims. And don't rule out biology as a source of inspiration.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (barakn @ Jan 14 2008, 08:51 AM) They already do what they can to repair damage, defend against viruses and cancer, etc., and if these tasks were easier than they actually are, evolution would have already come up with better methods. I don't agree with you here. Evolution is a fairly random approach, though it is provably effective. Unfortunately for us as individuals, evolution is about species survival not individual survival. It is not to a species advantage, even ours, for organisms to live too long. |
A valid point. I'm sure nanotechnology will come up with things that our bodies are not currently doing for us. I'm just asking for a healthy dose of critical thinking and skepticism when considering some of the more outlandish claims. And don't rule out biology as a source of inspiration.
Remember that our genes are used system-wide, and so our 'biological nanotechnology' has to have utility for every part of the body that it's expressed.
For example, the same proteins are used in the kidneys that are used in the brain, even though they have different function and don't cross the Blood Brain Barrier. Evolution can't easily 'tweak' the kidney protein without risking the brain. But we can. We know the use of the protein in both areas, and we should be able to use nanotechnology to augment just one of those areas.
For example, the same proteins are used in the kidneys that are used in the brain, even though they have different function and don't cross the Blood Brain Barrier. Evolution can't easily 'tweak' the kidney protein without risking the brain. But we can. We know the use of the protein in both areas, and we should be able to use nanotechnology to augment just one of those areas.
You have a good point there El_Machinae about how interconnected the body is. I find it fascinating that the lungs work as a gland to control how the kidneys maintain our electrolyt balance. Just one example of what you are saying.
Medical nanotech will allow us to localise, or even replace some of these mechanisms. We could gain control of the "fight or Flight" reaction that is the cause of a lot of stress. But we need to be careful, unless we turn ourselves into unemotional robots. [
]
Medical nanotech will allow us to localise, or even replace some of these mechanisms. We could gain control of the "fight or Flight" reaction that is the cause of a lot of stress. But we need to be careful, unless we turn ourselves into unemotional robots. [
]
NOM,
>But we need to be careful, unless we turn ourselves into unemotional robots.
Too late,,,
(sorry I couldn't resist, I'll just go sit back down over here somewhere)
>But we need to be careful, unless we turn ourselves into unemotional robots.
Too late,,,
(sorry I couldn't resist, I'll just go sit back down over here somewhere)
It's tough turning yourself into an unemotional robot, because we tend to do thinks that we enjoy doing. We predict our current and future enjoyment of performing an act. So, we're unlikely to swallow a pill which will remove our future enjoyment of life
We even 'enjoy' higher-level cognition (i.e., thinking hard to solve a problem), but we don't enjoy doing that 24/7. So any 'upgrades' which enhance our cognition (at the cost of emotional flavour) will only be occassionally sampled.
We even 'enjoy' higher-level cognition (i.e., thinking hard to solve a problem), but we don't enjoy doing that 24/7. So any 'upgrades' which enhance our cognition (at the cost of emotional flavour) will only be occassionally sampled.
The body already has nano-bots called white blood cells. They can target invaders and destroy. They can get skinny down and squeeze between cells to get their prey. They are even shape shifters able to stick out a finger process and grow into it. Or they can hop a ride in the blood stream and get off at the right stop. After a hardy meal, they find their way to places so they can rest and digest. They are tiny, able to fit in a modern nano-bots belt holes. The while blood cells may be a problem for modern nano-bots. They may converge, like ants on a grasshopper, and weigh it down trying to eat it.
That's why you cover the nanobot in a coating that is specific to your body. That way, the nanobot is recognised as your own.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.