Some of the biggest holdups on elective biotech

Submitted by crua9 t3_y4as0i in singularity

So just for fun I was thinking about some limits that will stop elective biotech. Basically, your eyes, arms, etc is 100% functional. But you replace your eyes with robot eyes for extra function.

​

Anyways, lets assume legally everything is good. The gov says it is good, doctors say it won't kill you, and it has been battle tested. So what is the holdup?

Cost:

Cost is most likely going to be the number 1 limit. Like for example, yesterday I heard of a story from a nurse talking about a couple that came in and the guy couldn't move his legs. They were asked how long this has been happening, and they said 2 years. They ended up borrowing a wheelchair from someone during that time, and what kept them away was the fear of the medical cost and lack of insurance. USA BTW

The cause was a number of strokes.

​

Anyways, the raw cost of getting this stuff done could be enough to push people who want it away.

​

Upkeep:

Again, this goes into cost. But the upkeep is important to note. Like will you have to get major surgery (like your eyes completely replaced) every so often? What is the cost of that? What happens if the company goes out of business? (this happens with real medical devices btw)

Then you have daily upkeep. Like with prosthetics today you have to use something due to the wear against the skin.

​

Taboo:

I honestly think this is going to be a generation thing. But like most things, this will be a thing that stops it for a bit.

I think somethings that will come with this is rumors of hacking or whatever. Similar to with how there was rumors on how cell phones can cause cancer or Bluetooth can cook your brain. For anyone young enough to not know this, legit look up the propaganda around this. It was pretty bad.

​

Haptic:

So for eyes and brain implants this doesn't matter. But for things like arms and what not, if you can't feel. Then I doubt people will be OK with replacing a perfectly good arm for a robotic arm.

Something I do think will happen is we will get under the skin haptic implants. Where if you have an AR pet or whatever, you can feel them.

​

Lack of need:

So for myself I could see me getting robotic eyes, ear implant, and a few brain implants. But outside of that, I don't think I would ever need a robotic leg or whatever. So I doubt I would ever get something for those areas. Like a brain implant and eyes can grant me a good bit. The brain implant can interact with the eyes and store data. Like the eyes will let me use AR without a headset and maybe see different things like heat.

But I have good enough legs. So IDK why I would just replace them with robot legs.

​

Upgrade:

So unlike upgrading something like a phone. To upgrade your eyes or brain implant, you would have to go under the knife again. Like it isn't easy to upgrade, and by getting something today you could massively miss out on future tech.

​

Their job:

It could prevent them from keeping their job. Like if their memory bank ever gets hacked, then problems. Like top secret stuff can get out, company info can get out, and so on. Even if it isn't a hack, the person might sell the info.

​

35

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ihateshadylandlords t1_isd8o25 wrote

That’s funny, I think doctors okaying the tech/battle testing will be the biggest hurdles to overcome.

9

crua9 OP t1_isd9ap0 wrote

Ya this is assuming all that is good. Like to just OK an implant I think it will take a good 10 years of study before it is marked as safe. Maybe more.

I think getting a doctor to OK it even after might be hard. But I think as it becomes more of a normal thing it might not be as hard. Like look at boob implants as an example. It had an uphill battle, and even if you want it the doctors that gave it was far and few between. But after it became popular it became where you didn't need to travel halfway across the country to get to a doctor to do it.

7

Wampino t1_isdsu9q wrote

can I get uhhh a pair of rocket feet and uh some infrared eyesight? to go, please.

2

Shamwowz21 t1_ishe1z1 wrote

Interesting! If a company goes out of business and there is a need that can be met for money (repairs of an older model, or need to replace said model) then a new business is born. I would not worry about that. Upkeep isn’t an issue, as said tech can replace an entire organ/major body part. So, treat it like a part of you and I’m sure it’ll last, as the engineering would have to be extremely clever as-is. If it does need maintenance, we’ll be at a point that it’s easy to maintain such a complex system(s). The lack of need, only assumes the current environment. As things change, who knows what kind of bodies will be required or desired i.e: a world with more time, perhaps will make better lungs for hiking the Himalayas, or interplanetary needs may leave one desiring a cyborg body if only temporary, or a robotic one should they not want to cross space for years at a time- the possibilities are endless, so with that clue we should assume the modifications will also be endless. Some things will be trendy, like bigger muscles or longer/shorter limbs, emergency 2nd heart(? who knows), etc etc it’ll have to be met with a need, I agree- but who knows what needs such a strange world will have? :)

1

crua9 OP t1_isi1y16 wrote

>If a company goes out of business and there is a need that can be met for money (repairs of an older model, or need to replace said model) then a new business is born.

There is people today with medical implants from a business that went out of business. Many their unit broke and they have no way to repair it. There has been repair companies that came up, but most died quickly due to lack of supplies.

You're thinking of something like a smartphone when you need to be thinking of something like a medical device. These devices will be attached to us in a serious way or they will be inside of our bodies. Like imagine having the repair place having to take out one of your eyes to work on it. Now what if they used lead or other things that can cause long term problems? These aren't companies you can just spin up. Unlike a smart phone, these things can kill people if repaired wrong.

​

>a world with more time, perhaps will make better lungs for hiking the Himalayas, or interplanetary needs may leave one desiring a cyborg body if only temporary, or a robotic one should they not want to cross space for years at a time- the possibilities are endless, so with that clue we should assume the modifications will also be endless.

I imagine at some point we will be able to remotely control a robot as if we are there. This taking away all danger other than PTSD. So like you want to hike the Himalayas, but maybe don't have the money to travel, you have only the weekend to do it, or you just don't want to be in the danger. You can just rent out a remote robot you can use a brain implant to remotely control as if you were there. And with sensors you can see, smell, and so on as if you are there. (side note, I have no doubt the porn industry will make this possible. Like that is most likely going to be where a lot of the funding will come in. Most likely even more than the military.)

1

Shamwowz21 t1_isi587z wrote

I’m thinking of a world where artificial human eyes that are enhanced with robotics will have a repair shop aka hospital that can adequately serve people in a world where even some can afford it, and others soon will. It may just be too soon for specific repairs, but hospitals are basically malls for the body. There will be an area designated for things like this, as there are even for more rare specialties. Sure, you can rent a robot to go up the Himalayas or Mount Everest, but people do that for the danger and personal growth typically, so I think it’ll still have a place even if another route has robots for everyone else.

1

Kinexity t1_isdg8js wrote

Lack of need is the main thing - you don't need this stuff as everything is already provided through other means. It's like crypto - you could use it but existing solutions are objectively better.

0

crua9 OP t1_isdm628 wrote

>It's like crypto - you could use it but existing solutions are objectively better.

Send money to someone overseas. Look at how much you waste doing it other methods.

There is actual uses crypto is solving. Like trustless verification system. Trustless logistic systems. And so on.

In fact a big example is software in crypto can take out loans. Like you have software that runs companies. It can take out loans with DeFi. But with CeFi (what is used outside of crypto) software can't take out loans. So outside of crypto you can't have an AI that runs a company and take out loans no matter how advance the AI is.

3

Kinexity t1_iseg6wt wrote

Neither of those problems are best solved with crypto. Also talking trustlessness in a world built on trust is making a fool of yourself. Trustlessness costs loads of energy and is impossible. We gain from trusting each other. There is no AI systems which need to autonomously take out loans and there will be solutions by the time such systems emerge. At least by sending money with traditional systems I don't have to care whether the transaction finishes or my clown token dives in value. Also - crypto transfer fees. Also there are already solutions bypassing standard bank transfers which remove the costs associated. There is no use case were crypto is better. It's a solution looking for a problem which doesn't exist.

Edit: should have checked earlier OP is CC regular. Explains detachment from reality.

−2

crua9 OP t1_isff5sg wrote

>Trustlessness costs loads of energy and is impossible.

You obviously don't know what trustless means.

If you're saying crypto in general cost loads of energy. It's actually far far far less than the normal banking system. Look at how much energy Visa alone uses. Seriously think about this for 5 seconds. You never hear about media bitching about how much energy the banks use, you never even hear it come up in normal media. But how much energy do they use to just stay alive and do what they do? How much energy does it cost just to send money to someone overseas?

To send money to another country it might have to go through 15 countries and several weeks even if you're sending money to a country in walking distance. And each location takes a massive fee with it.

​

If you're using the mining bit. Most are staking, but even if all were mining. It uses far less energy than Christmas lights in the USA alone. Lights that are just meant for cosmetic, that are only around for a month or less, and it's only looking at 1 country vs a world wide crypto mining. But... you don't hear anyone bitching about how much energy Christmas lights use. Keep in mind a ton of energy your power plant makes is wasted to prevent blackouts. That wasted energy in some locations goes to crypto mining and ramps up or down based on the electric company. Some electric companies even mine to help with this.

​

>Also talking trustlessness in a world built on trust is making a fool of yourself. We gain from trusting each other.

Trustless means the system works even without trust. I don't need to trust you to do the right thing, and you don't need to trust me to do the right thing. No trust is needed.

​

>There is no AI systems which need to autonomously take out loans and there will be solutions by the time such systems emerge.

I just told you this system exist in crypto. An AI/software ran company is called a DAO. That stands for Decentralized Autonomous Organization.

We have a ton of them. One of the major plus of a DAO is it cuts out the corruption from the upper staff and the management of a company. Some pay full salaries with real $ to employees. Hiring accountants, graphic artist, and so on. Their boss is an AI.

​

>At least by sending money with traditional systems I don't have to care whether the transaction finishes or my clown token dives in value.

We don't worry about transactions finishing. Stable coins are pegged to the $. 1 coin = $1.

>Also there are already solutions bypassing standard bank transfers which remove the costs associated.

The average person that transfers fiat to another country loses over 15% of the value due to fees and other things. It could take a few weeks.

Crypto can be near instant. And some like Nano has 0 transfer fees.

​

>Edit: should have checked earlier OP is CC regular.

And?

​

>Explains detachment from reality.

During this you proven your knowledge starts and ends with old propaganda. That you do 0 research in something.

​

Did you know most gov are working on their own CBDC. This is to include the USA. Basically after a given point you won't be able to use or get physical money, and all of it is going to be on the blockchain. Some countries already are pushing out there CBDC.

​

Now here is my question for you. Why do you care? Like why are you getting pissed? Why are you taking it so personal?

Nothing you do will change what will or has happened. So why care enough to get pissed over a technology to the point you want to slander it without doing an ounce of research.

2

Kinexity t1_isg4vux wrote

>You obviously don't know what trustless means.

I do know what trustless means and I do know that you don't know what trustlessness implies.

>If you're saying crypto in general cost loads of energy. It's actually far far far less than the normal banking system. Look at how much energy Visa alone uses. Seriously think about this for 5 seconds. You never hear about media bitching about how much energy the banks use, you never even hear it come up in normal media. But how much energy do they use to just stay alive and do what they do? How much energy does it cost just to send money to someone overseas?

There is a difference in neccesity. We need banks. We don't need crypto. Also I do know banks use a lot of energy BUT crypto would use more if it were to replace it. BTC transfer is 5-6 orders of magnitude less efficient than VISA transaction and others don't fare much better until you introduce "lightining network" or whatever it was called but that's just reinventing VISA and you solved nothing.

>To send money to another country it might have to go through 15 countries and several weeks even if you're sending money to a country in walking distance. And each location takes a massive fee with it.

And crypto doesn't have fees? Also this problem already has a solution - a third party with pools of money on both sides which takes your money on one side and outputs on the other through it's own internal system. You just put some trust in them and possibilities are endless.

Also you need to buy your clown tokens on one side and have someone to buy them on the other while hoping the market won't tank in the mean time. Cryptos aren't currencies as they don't have economies where they circulate.

>If you're using the mining bit. Most are staking, but even if all were mining. It uses far less energy than Christmas lights in the USA alone. Lights that are just meant for cosmetic, that are only around for a month or less, and it's only looking at 1 country vs a world wide crypto mining. But... you don't hear anyone bitching about how much energy Christmas lights use. Keep in mind a ton of energy your power plant makes is wasted to prevent blackouts. That wasted energy in some locations goes to crypto mining and ramps up or down based on the electric company. Some electric companies even mine to help with this.

While handling how many operations? Yeah, not that many. Christmas lights have the benefit of looking nice. Can't say the same about crypto. Also fun fact - staking means trusting the parties of the system. So trustless.

Well how about instead of setting up crypto space heaters we install electrolysers to produce hydrogen? Same capabilities in load balancing with added benefit of using this surplus energy to produce something with tangible value, hydrogen, which we'll need a fuckton of in the near future. Oh, but that does not support the case for crypto, does it? Yeah...

>Trustless means the system works even without trust. I don't need to trust you to do the right thing, and you don't need to trust me to do the right thing. No trust is needed.

Idk who are explaining it to but in return I have an explanation of you of a phenomenon which is the inevitable obstacle which crypto will never overcome - trust is inversely correlated to energy expenditure. The less trust there is in your system the more energy you use. We can look at existing systems to notice this trend. Why do we need money? To exchange our work for it to get the things we need using it. Economy is a system where money circulates and represents work which someone somewhere put into something someone else needed. I'll leave out speculation on the market, crime and other weird events because they complicate the explanation while not adding anything new. So, money is a form of safeguard in the society which guarantees that you did some work to exchange for someone else's work. We build whole gigantic system around money and it's flow - a system which we use a fuckton of resources to run. Now, what would happen if we just could trust each other that everyone is doing their part? This system is no longer needed so we don't use energy to run it. Same goes for law (we can't trust that everyone is good), cryptography (we can't trust that nobody is listening), military (we can't trust our neighbours won't attack us) and so on. Every such systems demands energy because there is a lack of trust. Crypto also is a subject to this phenomenon - BTC uses a fuckton of energy because it requires relatively low amount of trust to work but it's not trustless because there are attacks against it and the system is only as good as the code. Staking takes less energy because you actually have to trust stakeholders. This is why crypto is dumb - you spend a fuckton of energy chasing trustlessness which isn't even there. Not even talking about psychological reasoning that people who are afraid to trust anyone and want trustless systems are dysfunctioning members of the society as it's built on trust as much as possible.

>I just told you this system exist in crypto. An AI/software ran company is called a DAO. That stands for Decentralized Autonomous Organization.
>
>We have a ton of them. One of the major plus of a DAO is it cuts out the corruption from the upper staff and the management of a company. Some pay full salaries with real $ to employees. Hiring accountants, graphic artist, and so on. Their boss is an AI.

DAOs' main reason of existance is avoiding legal liability for the shit certain group of people does "It wasn't us, it was the DAO". Someone has to be kept liable for the shit people do and we can't make "The Code" liable. Also bunch of ifs on the blockchain isn't AI. Tbh I have yet to do a deep dive on DAOs so here I have to fall back on Dan's video.

>We don't worry about transactions finishing. Stable coins are pegged to the $. 1 coin = $1.

Which is pegged by a pinky promise because no security guarantees exist. One word - TerraUSD. Potential for scams is endless if your promise people to keep their money without any outside control.

>The average person that transfers fiat to another country loses over 15% of the value due to fees and other things. It could take a few weeks.
>
>Crypto can be near instant. And some like Nano has 0 transfer fees.

I proposed an existing solution after third citation (above). You don't need crypto for it to be either instant or free. Also you get way worse transaction efficiency and all other problems of crypto.

>And?

And this points out to the fact that you're a cryptobro. Maybe good willing but ultimately misguided person on what society needs to be better and why it's not crypto.

>During this you proven your knowledge starts and ends with old propaganda. That you do 0 research in something.

If all what I said up to this point is "propaganda" by your standards then I can simply call out that there probably is a conflict of interest on your side as I hold no stakes in either crypto or banking system. You can call what I say propaganda if you want but at the end of the day company menagers are a lot money oriented people than I am and if crypto was as useful as you claim there would be companies implementing it left and right. There aren't and those that do implement it don't even operate with crypto but make deals with exchanges to convert it and just give them money directly which creates no crypto economy as the chain of crypto flow is broken.

Also age of the argument doesn't make it better or worse. It's not my fault cryptobros chose to speedrun 2 thousand years of finance only to arrive with same solutions that we already have but worse.

>Did you know most gov are working on their own CBDC. This is to include the USA. Basically after a given point you won't be able to use or get physical money, and all of it is going to be on the blockchain. Some countries already are pushing out there CBDC.

Which isn't crypto and there is no blockchain here. Blockchain is just an immutable database and shitty one at that. "Sorry bro, code is law. We can't undo the theft of your money" - said and will say no bank ever. Also CBDCs will be built on trust in the central authority. They aim for formalisation of already existing state of things - that is that money is increasingly virtual. None of the "projects" of cryptosphere will be implemented as the official solution.

>Now here is my question for you. Why do you care? Like why are you getting pissed? Why are you taking it so personal?
>
>Nothing you do will change what will or has happened. So why care enough to get pissed over a technology to the point you want to slander it without doing an ounce of research.

Because I hate inefficiencies, tech grift, greed, scams and other stuff associated with crypto and my comments are here to potentially inform anyone who doesn't know how wrong cryptobros are. I've already heard DYOR from flat earthers, anti-vax, tankies and other unhinged types who have trust issues. Also DYOR actually means "read same things as I do" because it implies that every research that you do which contradicts what "DYOR" guy said is wrong which is just dumb. I linked "Line goes up" because I trust that in the chain of people that did and passed on their research forward problems have been ironed out and I don't need to schizophrenically check everything that they said. It's good to live without trust issues.

−1

crua9 OP t1_isgppcs wrote

Look I don't have the time to read through your book. But obviously with the little I did look at you have no care to educate yourself.

And this simply makes you not worth my time. Like I can counter everything you said, you then basically repeat whatever anti-crypto crap. Like you already got into name calling. But at the end you will keep pushing false info, and I know enough to see through it. So it is a waste of both of our time.

Like I've given you facts and you're loaded with opinions. While the information you tried to use to legitimize it is flat out wrong. It's your opinion and I respect you don't like new technology. Many boomers and boomer mentality people don't. It is fine.

Anyways, I hope you have a good day. When you do open your mind up to being educated then please feel free to come back. But until then, talking to stupid is a net negative.

1

Kinexity t1_isgqkce wrote

That's a long way to say that you're right on the principle that your opinion cannot be wrong. Edit: bruh. He blocked me.

1

crua9 OP t1_ishbue6 wrote

Don't mix my words. You're simply not worth my time.

You're too stupid. Like if you were ignorant then that's is one thing. But I can't work with stupid. Stupid is a waste of my time. Hence why I said you are a waste of my time

2