3

votes

Do you think future medical technology will enable us to eat junk 24/7 and be perfectly healthy?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created March 27, 2013 at 1:48 AM

Something I'm really into is futurism, particularly advanced medical technologies focusing on anti aging and life extension.

Technologies like gene therapy and nanotechnology offer tremendous potential promises in the coming decades to revolutionize the human biological condition- and I think we may very well be the beneficiaries.

I think one day, a person will be able to eat nothing but junk food , fast food, candy, etc, and drink all they want, smoke all they want, and still live as a very healthy olympic level 23 year old without a single health deficiency...ever.

At the very least, stopping the superificial signs of aging and curing all age relared diseases (cancer, heart disease, liver, etc) would make the need for healthy dieting obsolete. I imagine we will also be able to correct any acute health issues like blood sugar, digestion, etc, so that a person eating nothing but pizza and ice cream will feel as good as the healthiest caveman on the planet.

Do you agree? If this breakthrough ever occurs, would you stay paleo anyway or revert to bad habits?

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 29, 2013
at 12:15 AM

For perspective. Consider the cost of a single organ transplant: Several hundred thousand dollars. I repeatedly emphasized *custom work* by the nanobots. That means (very highly salaried) doctors steering the little gizmos. It's true you can program an intelligent nanobot, but only to a certain extent.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:27 PM

Moreover, as to the negs, I know Varelse does it because she has some sort of obsession with me. But for the others who neg me for statements of the obvious, such as the supreme merits of prison experiments, seriously? The super-duper-all-in-one-fix-it-upper nanobot does not exist, and never will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Standard qualifier: Unless fundamental physics changes.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:26 PM

Moreover, as to the negs, I know Varelse does it because she has some sort of obsession with me. But for the others who neg me for statements of the obvious, such as the supreme merits of prison experiments, seriously? The super-duper-all-in-one-fix-it-upper nanobot does not exist, and never will!! (Standard qualifier: Unless fundamental physics changes.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:22 PM

...cont. Second, I did not state that no nanotech is possible, or that types built for certain procedures wouldn't be cheap, only that the super-duper-all-in-one-fix-it-upper model (were one possible) would be extremely expensive to build and operate. Just to be clear if any strawmen raised or implied (not saying any were.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:20 PM

@Kashkillz: The OP asked whether nanobots might grant a perpetual youth. First think of the custom work on each molecular bond that would be required. Think of how many atoms in the body. Any super-duper-all-in-one-fix-it-upper nanobot would be extremely expensive to operate. Assuming one were possible to build. Moreover, entropy assures that this medical intervention is no more than a delaying operation.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:17 PM

...cont. Second, I did not state that no nanotech is possible, or that types built for certain procedures wouldn't be cheap, only the all-in-one-super-fix-it-upper type would be extremely expensive. Just to be clear if any strawmen raised or implied (not saying any were.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:17 PM

@Kashkillz: The OP asked whether nanobots might grant a perpetual youth. First think of the custom work on each molecular bond that would be required. Think of how many atoms in the body. Any all-in-one-super-fix-it-upper nanobot would be extremely expensive to operate. Assuming one were *possible* to build. Moreover, entropy assures that this medical intervention is no more than a delaying operation.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:15 PM

...cont. Second, I did not state that no nanotech is possible, or that types for certain procedures won't be cheap, only the all-in-one-super-fix-it-upper type would be extremely expensive. Just to be clear if any strawmen raised or implied (not saying any were.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:14 PM

...cont. Second, I did not state that *no nanotech is possible*, or that types for certain procedures won't be cheap, only the all-in-one-super-fix-it-upper type would be extreme expensive. Just to be clear if any strawmen raised or implied (not saying any were.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:13 PM

@Kashkillz: The OP asked whether nanobots might grant a perpetual youth. First think of the *custom work* on each molecular bond that would be required. Think of how many atoms in the body. The cost of any all-in-one-super-fix-it-upper nanobot would be extremely expensive to operate. Assuming one were possible to build. Moreover, entropy assures that this medical intervention is no more than a delaying operation.

Ed7403e397077dd1acdbf25c7f6e56ce

(3452)

on March 28, 2013
at 11:35 AM

Nobody thought so many blue collar folks would be able to afford palm-sized computers. The primary advancement of computer technology is and has been the fitting of more into smaller packages. And it is an exponential evolution that isn't presently slowing at all.

Ed7403e397077dd1acdbf25c7f6e56ce

(3452)

on March 28, 2013
at 11:31 AM

I'm familiar with Kurweil, Lipton, and J Silva. Can anyone recommend any other sources for futurism?

61f9349ad28e3c42d1cec58ba4825a7d

(10490)

on March 27, 2013
at 09:53 PM

Oh look, you went for condescension again! So surprising. It really is a whole lot easier to assume that people don't understand you than to actually back up your statements.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 08:45 PM

@Varelse: I don't tailor my posts to whatever your grade level of reading & scientific comprehension. That level is of no interest to me. If you don't understand, that's on you.

61f9349ad28e3c42d1cec58ba4825a7d

(10490)

on March 27, 2013
at 01:06 PM

-1 to diabeticbinger for finding it not his job to back up his opinions with facts and instead using condescension to deflect. +1 to Wakaanai for understanding the Singularity concept.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 08:08 AM

I see no need to add to my earlier comments. It's not my job to explain every connection and detail. If you feel strongly about it, post it as a separate question before the entire community.

5bd7f43c7da83282bcb78e3aa33832e0

(266)

on March 27, 2013
at 06:14 AM

Think about it this way. As an evolutionary adaptation, we have built into our biological a life cycle (I like to refer to this as the 'hardcoded death cycle). At some point, we may be able to change this aspect of our biology, just as we may be able to change other aspects of biology, when or if resources and knowledge reach a sufficient level

5bd7f43c7da83282bcb78e3aa33832e0

(266)

on March 27, 2013
at 06:11 AM

Your statements have nothing to do with fundamental laws of physics. You're entire point is contingent upon a claim that it will be too expensive or something. How does this have to so with any fundamental laws of physics?

5bd7f43c7da83282bcb78e3aa33832e0

(266)

on March 27, 2013
at 06:09 AM

Who's buying the car? As long as I wish to remain alive, it'll never be cheaper for me to die. I don't plan on dying until my quality of life is hopelessly trashed, or I have no other choice. As I'm quite young, I believe I have a good chance to make it to the point where technological is increasing lifespan by more than a year per year (meaning I won't have to die of old age)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 04:31 AM

And btw, just because it's possible doesn't mean you get it for free or inexpensively. Which a lot of star-struck futurists seem to believe. Corvettes exist. That's faster than my car. Where's my freebie? I still have to PAY. Some things will never be cheap due to the energetic costs of construction.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 04:30 AM

Unless fundamental physics changes, my statements stand. Think for a moment of the customized work required on each of the deranged atoms and molecular connections in the human body. As for the repair of a car, think of the heavy cost. At some point, it's cheaper to a buy a new car. And the biological analogue to that is death.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 04:27 AM

And btw, just because it's possible doesn't mean you get it for free. Which a lot of star-struck futurists seem to believe. Corvettes exist. That's faster than my car. Where's my freebie? I still have to PAY. Some things will never be cheap due to the energetic costs of construction.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 04:25 AM

And btw, just because it's possible doesn't mean you get it for free. Which a lot of star-struck futurists seem to believe. BMWs exist. Where's my freebie? I still hafta PAY. Some things will never be cheap due to the energetic costs of construction.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 04:23 AM

Unless fundamental physics changes, my statements stand. Think for a moment of the customized work required on each of the deranged atoms and molecular connections in the human body. As for the repair of a car, think of the heavy cost. At some point, it's cheaper to a buy a new car. Which is exactly my point. And the biological analogue to that is DEATH.

5bd7f43c7da83282bcb78e3aa33832e0

(266)

on March 27, 2013
at 03:58 AM

@ "You cannot do nano-level repairs of the human body in a very economic way. What few types of repairs that might be possible will be extremely expensive": Just try to imagine what you may have thought 300 years ago about what modern times would look like, and then compare it to what it actually looks like. Doubtful you'd have had any idea about the Internet, planes, etc. Now treat your current assumptions from the same perspective, and ask yourself, are you really THAT sure about what you just said?

5bd7f43c7da83282bcb78e3aa33832e0

(266)

on March 27, 2013
at 03:54 AM

No getting around entropy? What about just always repairing a car whenever it breaks, and doing that forever? Or to be more precise, do it for a really, really long time. Certainly the singularity won't bring 'immortality', but if it happens as planned, we'll be able to live a very, very long time

  • 77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

    asked by

    (78467)
  • Views
    1.9K
  • Last Activity
    1428D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

7 Answers

2
Ed7403e397077dd1acdbf25c7f6e56ce

on March 27, 2013
at 06:08 AM

I really hope that anyone who could make that possible would find it a moral imperative to work on something more meaningful... which is pretty much anything at all.

2
Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on March 27, 2013
at 02:19 AM

Yes, if it's patentable.

1
72cf727474b8bf815fdc505e58cadfea

on March 27, 2013
at 02:13 AM

If you assume that we'll eventually have general-purpose nanobots, then there's almost no limit to what becomes possible. We'd also need a complex understanding of every biochemical event that occurs as part of eating just to figure out what the nanobots should do. I wouldn't be surprised if that took even longer to develop. Though perhaps you could take a shortcut by having the nanobots reconfigure the molecules of food we consume into the molecules making up more nutritious food (avoid difficulties with pinpointing the critical nutritional factors in healthy foods by just recreating the entire food molecule-for-molecule).

Obviously, I wouldn't expect anything approaching this in my lifetime. I won't try to predict any farther out than that due to the possibility of armageddon and/or The Singularity.

0
5cda390ba231f27b016904bbb78f4c6c

on March 27, 2013
at 10:54 AM

Nooooooooooooooooooo... we are getting sicker not healthier

0
4bc16f4181328acbdbb1dfbf0b77b25d

(70)

on March 27, 2013
at 10:23 AM

so... where would Darwinism come in? and how would this enhance life exactly? we would again be over populating and already overpopulated place. would we magically die around 80 looking still and acting like we are 20? i don't get it, nor do i get the current americanized brain adaption to looking for the next 'hit' on pleasure. it absolutely distracts from the real pleasures in life...instead of being satisfied with a burger you want to eat big macs?? i think we should use whats provided to enhance life not use a test tube to develop it. i think the advent of something like you describe would ruin human beings

0
3b031bce7c181c10452ee202e2b54dc6

on March 27, 2013
at 01:52 AM

Well I dont see why there still isn't a snack food that is near zero calories. I mean if there is, I Dont know about it!

They make cardboard taste like a Big Mac but so why can't they make a Big Mac have the nutritional density of just cardboard, instead of cardboard soaked in processed oil

-2
24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 02:15 AM

Health science is constrained by physics, so the easy answer is "no".

Future medical advances will raise quality of life, & they will extend life span, but ultimately there's no getting around entropy. Forget immortality and forget perpetual youth.

You cannot do nano-level repairs of the human body in a very economic way. What few types of repairs that might be possible will be extremely expensive. I'm not sure you can do atom-level repairs exactly, period (quantum physicists, this is your cue).

And no, you should not expect to receive it for free.

But as I see it, there is no reason to eat non-Paleo with the advent of Paleo ice cream and chocolate.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 04:31 AM

And btw, just because it's possible doesn't mean you get it for free or inexpensively. Which a lot of star-struck futurists seem to believe. Corvettes exist. That's faster than my car. Where's my freebie? I still have to PAY. Some things will never be cheap due to the energetic costs of construction.

5bd7f43c7da83282bcb78e3aa33832e0

(266)

on March 27, 2013
at 06:09 AM

Who's buying the car? As long as I wish to remain alive, it'll never be cheaper for me to die. I don't plan on dying until my quality of life is hopelessly trashed, or I have no other choice. As I'm quite young, I believe I have a good chance to make it to the point where technological is increasing lifespan by more than a year per year (meaning I won't have to die of old age)

5bd7f43c7da83282bcb78e3aa33832e0

(266)

on March 27, 2013
at 03:54 AM

No getting around entropy? What about just always repairing a car whenever it breaks, and doing that forever? Or to be more precise, do it for a really, really long time. Certainly the singularity won't bring 'immortality', but if it happens as planned, we'll be able to live a very, very long time

5bd7f43c7da83282bcb78e3aa33832e0

(266)

on March 27, 2013
at 06:11 AM

Your statements have nothing to do with fundamental laws of physics. You're entire point is contingent upon a claim that it will be too expensive or something. How does this have to so with any fundamental laws of physics?

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 08:45 PM

@Varelse: I don't tailor my posts to whatever your grade level of reading & scientific comprehension. That level is of no interest to me. If you don't understand, that's on you.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 04:25 AM

And btw, just because it's possible doesn't mean you get it for free. Which a lot of star-struck futurists seem to believe. BMWs exist. Where's my freebie? I still hafta PAY. Some things will never be cheap due to the energetic costs of construction.

5bd7f43c7da83282bcb78e3aa33832e0

(266)

on March 27, 2013
at 06:14 AM

Think about it this way. As an evolutionary adaptation, we have built into our biological a life cycle (I like to refer to this as the 'hardcoded death cycle). At some point, we may be able to change this aspect of our biology, just as we may be able to change other aspects of biology, when or if resources and knowledge reach a sufficient level

61f9349ad28e3c42d1cec58ba4825a7d

(10490)

on March 27, 2013
at 09:53 PM

Oh look, you went for condescension again! So surprising. It really is a whole lot easier to assume that people don't understand you than to actually back up your statements.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:14 PM

...cont. Second, I did not state that *no nanotech is possible*, or that types for certain procedures won't be cheap, only the all-in-one-super-fix-it-upper type would be extreme expensive. Just to be clear if any strawmen raised or implied (not saying any were.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 04:30 AM

Unless fundamental physics changes, my statements stand. Think for a moment of the customized work required on each of the deranged atoms and molecular connections in the human body. As for the repair of a car, think of the heavy cost. At some point, it's cheaper to a buy a new car. And the biological analogue to that is death.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 04:23 AM

Unless fundamental physics changes, my statements stand. Think for a moment of the customized work required on each of the deranged atoms and molecular connections in the human body. As for the repair of a car, think of the heavy cost. At some point, it's cheaper to a buy a new car. Which is exactly my point. And the biological analogue to that is DEATH.

61f9349ad28e3c42d1cec58ba4825a7d

(10490)

on March 27, 2013
at 01:06 PM

-1 to diabeticbinger for finding it not his job to back up his opinions with facts and instead using condescension to deflect. +1 to Wakaanai for understanding the Singularity concept.

5bd7f43c7da83282bcb78e3aa33832e0

(266)

on March 27, 2013
at 03:58 AM

@ "You cannot do nano-level repairs of the human body in a very economic way. What few types of repairs that might be possible will be extremely expensive": Just try to imagine what you may have thought 300 years ago about what modern times would look like, and then compare it to what it actually looks like. Doubtful you'd have had any idea about the Internet, planes, etc. Now treat your current assumptions from the same perspective, and ask yourself, are you really THAT sure about what you just said?

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 04:27 AM

And btw, just because it's possible doesn't mean you get it for free. Which a lot of star-struck futurists seem to believe. Corvettes exist. That's faster than my car. Where's my freebie? I still have to PAY. Some things will never be cheap due to the energetic costs of construction.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 27, 2013
at 08:08 AM

I see no need to add to my earlier comments. It's not my job to explain every connection and detail. If you feel strongly about it, post it as a separate question before the entire community.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:17 PM

...cont. Second, I did not state that no nanotech is possible, or that types built for certain procedures wouldn't be cheap, only the all-in-one-super-fix-it-upper type would be extremely expensive. Just to be clear if any strawmen raised or implied (not saying any were.)

Ed7403e397077dd1acdbf25c7f6e56ce

(3452)

on March 28, 2013
at 11:35 AM

Nobody thought so many blue collar folks would be able to afford palm-sized computers. The primary advancement of computer technology is and has been the fitting of more into smaller packages. And it is an exponential evolution that isn't presently slowing at all.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 29, 2013
at 12:15 AM

For perspective. Consider the cost of a single organ transplant: Several hundred thousand dollars. I repeatedly emphasized *custom work* by the nanobots. That means (very highly salaried) doctors steering the little gizmos. It's true you can program an intelligent nanobot, but only to a certain extent.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:15 PM

...cont. Second, I did not state that no nanotech is possible, or that types for certain procedures won't be cheap, only the all-in-one-super-fix-it-upper type would be extremely expensive. Just to be clear if any strawmen raised or implied (not saying any were.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:22 PM

...cont. Second, I did not state that no nanotech is possible, or that types built for certain procedures wouldn't be cheap, only that the super-duper-all-in-one-fix-it-upper model (were one possible) would be extremely expensive to build and operate. Just to be clear if any strawmen raised or implied (not saying any were.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:13 PM

@Kashkillz: The OP asked whether nanobots might grant a perpetual youth. First think of the *custom work* on each molecular bond that would be required. Think of how many atoms in the body. The cost of any all-in-one-super-fix-it-upper nanobot would be extremely expensive to operate. Assuming one were possible to build. Moreover, entropy assures that this medical intervention is no more than a delaying operation.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:27 PM

Moreover, as to the negs, I know Varelse does it because she has some sort of obsession with me. But for the others who neg me for statements of the obvious, such as the supreme merits of prison experiments, seriously? The super-duper-all-in-one-fix-it-upper nanobot does not exist, and never will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Standard qualifier: Unless fundamental physics changes.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:26 PM

Moreover, as to the negs, I know Varelse does it because she has some sort of obsession with me. But for the others who neg me for statements of the obvious, such as the supreme merits of prison experiments, seriously? The super-duper-all-in-one-fix-it-upper nanobot does not exist, and never will!! (Standard qualifier: Unless fundamental physics changes.)

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:17 PM

@Kashkillz: The OP asked whether nanobots might grant a perpetual youth. First think of the custom work on each molecular bond that would be required. Think of how many atoms in the body. Any all-in-one-super-fix-it-upper nanobot would be extremely expensive to operate. Assuming one were *possible* to build. Moreover, entropy assures that this medical intervention is no more than a delaying operation.

24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 28, 2013
at 11:20 PM

@Kashkillz: The OP asked whether nanobots might grant a perpetual youth. First think of the custom work on each molecular bond that would be required. Think of how many atoms in the body. Any super-duper-all-in-one-fix-it-upper nanobot would be extremely expensive to operate. Assuming one were possible to build. Moreover, entropy assures that this medical intervention is no more than a delaying operation.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!