Body 2.0 — Continuous Monitoring of the Human Body 330
Singularity Hub has a story about the development of technology that will some day allow for the constant, real-time monitoring of your medical status, and they take a look at current technological advances to that end. Quoting:
"Did you ever stop to think how silly and also how dangerous it is to live our lives with absolutely no monitoring of our body's medical status? Years from now people will look back and find it unbelievable that heart attacks, strokes, hormone imbalances, sugar levels, and hundreds of other bodily vital signs and malfunctions were not being continuously anticipated and monitored by medical implants. ... The huge amounts of data that would be accumulated from hundreds of thousands of continuously monitored people would be nothing short of a revolution for medical research and analysis. This data could be harvested to understand the minute by minute changes in body chemistry that occur in response to medication, stress, infection, and so on. As an example, the daily fluctuations in hormone levels of hundreds of thousands of individuals could be tracked and charted 24/7 to determine a baseline from which abnormalities and patterns could be extracted. The possibilities are enormous."
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you ever stop to think how silly and also how dangerous it is to live our lives with absolutely no monitoring of our body's medical status?
I think it's silly how people constantly try to eliminate every imaginable element of risk from their lives instead of just getting out there and living it. I find the idea of having my physiology constantly monitored by a computer about as attractive as living in a big plastic bubble. But hey if what you want out of modern medicine is to be protected by layer after layer of prophylactics so you can feel safe, by all means go for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ROFLMAO! X)
Utopistic
But that shows one important question: Why do we keep paying immensively high taxes (atleast here in Finland), yet are unable to get something as important as proper medical care?
Here, high taxes is often defended with medical care, yet it's totally crap, if you get doctor's appointment, they have less than 5minutes for you, and basicly rolls a dice to make a diagnosis, and gives you random medication.
Or more recent incident was that i were getting wisdom tooth removed, i got the appoint
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft Vaccine 2000 is configuring your immune system. This may take a few minutes. If your body stops responding for a long time and there is no brain activity please die. Setup will continue after you are reborn.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hate it when people quote Heisenberg out of context.
He might, or might not, have quoted Heisenberg out of context. Until I look it up, though, his post exists in a state of superposition, doesn't it? :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Practically every time they deal with health on Star Trek.
Oh, wait, you're trying to talk about real doctors on /.?
...and will be used against you (Score:3, Insightful)
OR:
"Your blood alcohol level is above the legal limit. A police officer is on the way. Please stop your vehicle immediately and wait to be arrested."
And it would do this even if you were driving on your own private road, or driving a tractor on your own land (hint: DUI rules apply only on public roads, parking lots, etc.).
I envisioned it more like this -background monitor (Score:3, Interesting)
So when you urinate in the morning, the toilet might check for excessive proteins to look for kidney damage, or myeloma, or see if there is sugar (diabetes). It might also check the toilet for blood to see if you have a bleed from a colon tumor, or ulcer.
Maybe a little chip to monitor blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides.
Or better yet, heart rate, oxygenation, and BP levels, to monitor your exercise tolerance - to see if you are fit. It would automatically upload it to your house computer. You coul
Re: (Score:2)
And it would do this even if you were driving on your own private road, or driving a tractor on your own land
Doesn't sound likely, it would be to easy to build GPS into the thing that then could handle your private road just fine. Also your car will probably just switch to autopilot if you drank to much, its the future after all.
Re: (Score:2)
In Quebec, it also applies on private land. Same ticket if you're caught having a beer on a lawn tractor in your yard than while driving a car on the road.
Really? I was not aware of that. I lived in Ontario for some years, and I don't think DUI applied on your own land or private roads (speed limits didn't). But that was a while back and maybe things have changed in a suboptimal way.
BTW, is it also illegal to ride a horse while drunk in Quebec? In most of the world, it is quite legal, on the grounds that the likelihood of a horse crashing or otherwise causing damage is not greatly changed by its having an enebriated rider (other than the drunk rider fallin
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But you still can get a ticket for riding a horse while drunk, though the consequences are a lot less important. A 100$ ticket.
http://lejournaldequebec.canoe.ca/journaldequebec/actualites/quebec/archives/2009/01/20090123-120605.html/ [canoe.ca] Two months ago in Trois-RiviÃres.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the worst cases are where the cops can charge you for DUI if they find you in your car with the keys while drunk, even if it's 10am and you're fast asleep. Given the number of times I or my friends have stumbled out to a car and slept it off bef
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes why dont we all stop using hospitals as well.
If its your day to die its your day to die.
Asking for some-one's help to save your life is for sissies.
I can monitor my laptop's fan speed all day long, but cant do so for my heart, which is /much/ more important than a replaceable gadget.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, The human heart far more reliable than your laptop fan.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its not just about real-time monitoring but also collecting data. /your/ average.
Knowing the complete medical history will enable far diagnosis.
Everybody is different and this data will stop doctors from generalizations and treat patients based on their past data and actual deviations from
Re: (Score:2)
Unless there's errors in the medical history that send the doctor on a wild goose chase.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes you can. Even though that will mean putting a bullet through your skull occasionally. Welcome to freedom and responsibility. Ha ha.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, ever since I took charge of my health and decided not to have cancer, I've been just fine!
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are genetically predisposed to acquire diabetes or hypertension - even if your eat super healthy food, exercise, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I can monitor my laptop's fan speed all day long, but cant do so for my heart
- Open Windows desktop clock
- Place two fingers on wrist
- When the clock read XX:XX:00 start counting
- When the clock reads XX:XY:00 stop counting.
- That's the speed of your hearts in beats per minute. Repeat as often as desired. Cost: Nothing but time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention, most "abnormalities" would be seen as miscounts.
People feel fine til they have their heart attack (Score:2)
But an EKG or stress cardiogram would probably show that something was amiss.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
While there are obvious privacy issues here, new technology doesn't have to always produce net evil results. I would have thought people on a tech board would understand that. If devices like this were built to only report results using a method that's sure to be noticed, and stupid governments don't pass laws mandating the results be given to the government, this would be an incredible tool not only for medical diagnosis, but also for learning to better control your body.
And before anyone starts yapping about how governments are always stupid and will always take your freedom, so we'd be better off not having this tech, I just have to say: grow up. Governments are masses of people, not monolithic freedom vampires, and if you seriously think that you can have no impact on the course of government, you don't deserve the freedoms a lot of people have worked hard and sacrificed for over the years. If you don't like the current state of government (and there's plenty not to like), then get genuinely politically active, instead of just anonymously whining on the internet.
Sorry,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You believe you have an impact on government? Then you're numerically- and politically-naive, at best (so, I will guess you are a college student).
Voting is individually-irrational -- even if it is collectively the least-bad political option yet-devised (it beats dictatorship in its ability to deliver human freedom and modern societal outcomes).
Take a hypothetical voting population of 100 people - you are 1 of that 100. Assume 51% voter turnout.
Of the 51 people voting, assume 26 voted Republican, 24 voted
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>a threat to public health and forceful measures to protect US from YOU
Japan already has mandatory diets for those with BMI>30. When the government gives you taxpayer-supported healthcare, the government also has the right to run your life. Just the same as when Congress hands money to the States, and attaches all kinds of requirements, such as raising the drinking age from 18 to 21.
Of course the States have the option to refuse Congressional money, and leave the drinking age at 18. Unfortunately the citizens do not have a similar right - citizens are expected to fall into line according to the Tyrants... er, politicians' wishes. "Go on a diet!" "Yes sir."
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
When the government gives you taxpayer-supported healthcare, the government also has the right to run your life
Not true. I live in a country with publicly funded healthcare. It seems statements such as yours are FUD and rhetoric from the private healthcare industry since it clearly not how things actually work out. Clearly totally private healthcare as implemented in the USA does not work. The advantage of of public healthcare is everybody has access to it, and are get care based on need, not on wealth class or race, which is what inevitably happens with an private insurance based system.
So presumably, you trust big corporates more than a government?
Don't get me wrong though, public healtcare has problems, especially in terms of limited resources in the UK, various EU members, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. But somehow these nations rank much higher in health standards that the USA.
For-profit health care is beholden to a financial bottom line, not a democratic government mandated to measure performance on care, not revenue. So in private vs public the latter is the lesser of two evils.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly totally private healthcare as implemented in the USA does not work.
Just to be clear, we don't have totally private healthcare here. The government covers about 40% of us, most of the rest get coverage through work, and only a small fraction actually buy health insurance on its own. This allows us to enjoy healthcare as unequally distributed as a full-blown free market system, as bureaucratic and unresponsive as any large government system, and as expensive as both put together.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than have Uncle Sam Healthcare, or Corporate health insurance, I prefer to pay my bills as they happen. So far by not buying insurance I've saved $5000 * 36 years == $180,000. I spend $100-200 a year on my health, so reduce that to ~$170,000 saved.
>>>you trust big corporates more than a government?
Absolutely not. I hate corporations. But at least I have the option to not hand them my money w/o fear of getting tossed into jail. Corporations offer the freedom of choice; the U.S. Congress
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Japan already has mandatory diets for those with BMI>30. When the government gives you taxpayer-supported healthcare, the government also has the right to run your life.
Well, I can't find anything corroborating those claims. But assuming they are true, most likely, there aren't "mandatory diets" but simply either/or choices: either you go on a diet or you lose your government health care. And that's something I'd fully support: if you refuse reasonable treatments, then your health insurance shouldn't b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Japan already has mandatory diets for those with BMI>30.
Not quite true. The relevant law mandates metabolic syndrome checks for people aged 40-74 [e-gov.go.jp], and it catches [e-gov.go.jp] people with (1) waist size >= 85cm (90cm for women) or BMI >= 25 and (2) high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or high blood sugar. Supposedly there's a financial penalty for not taking the exam, or for not following the directions (diet, etc.) you're given, but I haven't been able to find any specific mention of such.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
I can imagine a future society where your attitude would be considered a threat to public health and forceful measures to protect US from YOU.
Gosh yes, imagine a world where it's illegal to ride a bike unless you are wearing a proper helmet approved by a government designated regulatory agency, or to drive your car without wearing your seatbelt, or to smoke a cigarette or a joint in the privacy of your own home. Or where you're required by the state to buy overpriced insurance whether you want it or not. Where the state disciplines you for disciplining your kid, where restaurants are forbidden from serving certain tasty yet unhealthy ingredients, where every product and every place of business is clearly labeled concerning the possible risks of cancer. Oh, heaven forfend that this might spiral into such lunacy!
Re: (Score:2)
You have proved the PP's point. Those things are BAD, or have you forgotten your civics?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Spanking" only describes the location of the blows. That is to say, you can't spank a child's face, but you can spank the butt until it bleeds. It doesn't adequately describe force, duration, what implements were used.
Therefore, to me, "spanking" should not be legal or illegal. But leaving bruises, or welts that last more than, say, an hour, probably should be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find the idea of having my physiology constantly monitored by a computer about as attractive as living in a big plastic bubble.
I have an immune system designed for just that purpose. Oh, and it actually does something when it finds something.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually many people's immune systems are "designed" to kill them (autoimmune disorders).
Still, I agree with the general points in this thread, that life is for living, not for obsessing over.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
With implanted medical monitors, LINUX RUNS YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, this sort of tech is most likely to be picked up first by people who do extreme sports like mountaineering, high intensity training, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
All human action is a means to an end. To relieve felt uneasiness. From the day human had to escape being eaten by a lion to the day we created a vaccine for small pox we have been trying to increase our chances for survival. It is very easy to argue that you and your ancestors owe your very existence to that innate behaviour.
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how monitoring my body automatically and being informed when my lifestyle leads to risk of serious ill health is "constantly try to eliminate every imaginable element of risk".
I put on a wrist strap, forget about it, and then I get a notice every few months that I need more exercise, or I need to cut out saturated fats. Or, I even get a couple of notices daily to tell me to go eat a banana to maintain a blood sugar level that will keep me feeling good.
That sounds pretty damn good to me. Most adults are killed by cancer or heart disease, and most cancer and heart disease are curable if caught early. It sounds to me like a system only an idiot would turn down.
Seriously, if you live the way you're proposing, you would ride your motorcycle helmet-less back & forth to work every day, dine on bacon cheeseburgers and chili cheese fries, and only ever exercise if it was fun. I'm all for your right to live that way, but I refuse to let your snide commentary on people who choose to put a little work into living happy, long lives stand without refutation.
(Note: this commentary is really directed as much at moderators as at the parent. A +5 Insightful comment naturally gets a more visceral reaction than the same comment at 2.)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's silly how people constantly try to eliminate every imaginable element of risk from their lives instead of just getting out there and living it. I find the idea of having my physiology constantly monitored by a computer about as attractive as living in a big plastic bubble. But hey if what you want out of modern medicine is to be protected by layer after layer of prophylactics so you can feel safe, by all means go for it.
I disagree completely. I love being alive and I want to do as much as possible. Also, I don't equate being alive with being in danger. Therefore, if something will improve my survival without having a negative impact on the rest of my life then I'm all for it.
If you really must have danger then look at it this way, you now have the opportunity to try the maximum amount of legal and illegal drugs to the fullest extent that your body can take. You'll instantly know when you've hit your limit.
Ignorance != Bliss (Score:5, Insightful)
It's infuriating to see the the semi-luddite rantings of the parent post got modded insightful. Makes me wonder why I even read Slashdot anymore.
Clearly the parent poster believes that monitoring devices are for ninnies and the weak. I assume that he follows his logic to it's logical conclusion and
- carefully disables all monitoring and warning devices on all/any vehicles he drives - after all engine check lights are for sissies!
- removes any and all air quality detectors (smoke/carbon monoxide/radon) from his homes (not to mention any security systems)
- if a sysadmin, avoids the use of any and all alterts, alarms, and carefully avoids the instalation of monitoring systems
The fact is that if this was about managing a server farm or a commercial jetliner instead of a person's body there wouldn't be a doubt in anyone's mind that recieving timely accurate information about system health and integrity is a *good* thing.
Ignorance is *not* bliss, and having more information doesn't mean that you necessarily turn into a hypochondriac. It *does* mean you have the knowledge to make responsible, informed choices -- and/or not to.
Pre-emptive monitoring for signs of heart attacks and strokes are no joking matter and detecting these early on mean the difference between mild and serious, life-altering damage or death. But apparently ignorance will be bliss for the parent poster until the "surprise" stroke, adult-onset-diabetes, heart-attack, or too-late cancer diagnosis.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because random tests are flawed. How many times do we need to hear about missed heart conditions or even missed diabetes because an annual random test is not effective as constant real time monitoring for an extended period?
The only reason we have the "annual checkup" system is not because its effective but because its cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's silly how people constantly try to eliminate every imaginable element of risk from their lives instead of just getting out there and living it.
I agree. I also think it's silly to say we have "absolutely no monitoring of our body's medical status" when we have our nervous system - a far more comprehensive, sensitive monitoring and fault detection system than covers most industrial plants.
My mantra on the matter is this: "I love life too much to let my fear of losing it stop me from living it."
The return of Clippy. (Score:5, Funny)
Great (Score:2)
And the fine print.... (Score:4, Funny)
"This new technology is sponsored and funded by:
Your friendly health and life insurance company, constantly finding new and innovative ways to make sure we never have to pay you a dime since 1666."
We've got along well enough without (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides that's one more system to be abused and used as an excuse to exclude you from something.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People can be subject to drug tests and physicals before taking on a job already. If basically having a full medical check-up is readily available it would be silly to think that employers aren't going to want to see that.
Sure you can object but the job will go to someone else who doesn't object. I don't think it's that outrageous to think that most people wouldn't object to it either because it's quite apparent most people give out more informati
Re: (Score:2)
The shotgun approach sucks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that in most cases, the person keeping an eye on all those server and network monitors is actually trained. At the very least, they have enough technical knowledge about the subjects in hand that they can make an educated decision as to whether it's worth waking the grumpy sysadmin to come down to the office or whether the problem can wait until morning.
This is more likely to be read by a bunch of amateurs concerned by any fluctuation in any reading, and then running to their "sysadmin"
I've wondered that (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost is too high, and frankly not worth it. (Score:2)
>>>Years from now people will look back and find it unbelievable that...malfunctions were not being continuously monitored
I have my doubts. It costs a lot of money to install monitors inside a human being, and most people don't earn enough money to pay the cost (and neither does the government, which also relies on people's earnings). In fact most cars or computer or televisions don't come with monitors for the same reason, so lack of monitoring is actually quite common.
Also people are replaceab
Re: (Score:2)
Also people are replaceable. We have 6 billion of them, with new ones constantly being produced to replace the broken ones.
Yeah, but the replacement parts are expensive, vary in quality, and don't come in standard configurations, so you have to keep re-tuning things. Besides, there's all those political issues to consider. They keep telling people to "reduce, reuse, recycle", but I have yet to see this implemented for 'broken' vagrants and retarded children.
After all, no one lives forever. What's th
Our body has a monitoring system built in (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, our bodies provide lots of feedback. It's just that we are never taught how to listen to those signals. It's usually after the injury occurs that we learn to listen on our own. You would be amazed how well many diabetics can tell their sugar level at any given moment. It doesn't take more than a month of measuring to learn that. I know I may sound heretical on a geek board, but I would consider that skill more vital to many people than calculus.
Useless and redundant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
(2) Even EKG changes aren't instantaneous. You'll have been having chest pain for quite some time before you start showing hyperacute T waves.
(3) But, finally, you have to target your measurements. Standard continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring is probably going to show you an increased heart rate and increased respiratory rate. Not very helpful. Continuous cardiac monitoring doesn't have the same resolution as an EKG; you're
Re: (Score:2)
As far as MIs, though, quite possibly the greatest factor affecting your survival is how quickly you can get carted away to the cath lab, and I can't see how continuously monitoring anything is going to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that a heart attack is often confused, sometimes even by doctors, with an inflamation of the shoulder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Our body has a monitoring system built in (Score:5, Insightful)
If not you, then who? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not going to be willing to take care of yourself, continuous monitoring ain't going to save you.
That's wrong. Continuous monitoring by a neutral party can find medical problems I would otherwise ignore. I can still engage in behavior that decreases my lifespan, but those who end up treating me will have a much better idea of what is wrong with me and why. My health will be better as a result.
Re:Our body has a monitoring system built in (Score:4, Interesting)
Fun game:
Ask your friends what the current stats are on their WoW character. Strength, agility, stamina, intelligence, etc.
Then ask them what their resting heart rate is. (Them, not the character.)
Can be counterproductive (Score:5, Insightful)
> "Did you ever stop to think how silly and also how dangerous
> it is to live our lives with absolutely no monitoring of our
> body's medical status?
One thing you find as you get older and start having more tests, particularly if you have a doctor that likes to keep up with the latest research, is that each test you have for a specific parameter will also return results on 8-10 other parameters - that's just the way med labs are set up. And of those 8-10 parameters neither your doctor nor you intended to test at least one will be out-of-limits for your sex/age/weight/height. A little research in the latest medical data (by your doctor) or you (on the Internet) will quickly reveal that having parameter 7 out-of-limit can lead to immediate doom. Or not - the research is inconclusive.
So what do you do now? As I said every time you have a test you are going to come back with at least 1, and maybe more, new things to be concerned about. Should you start some sort of treatment for that out-of-limit condition? What side effects should you accept for treating something that was causing you no problems? What new conditions will be revealed every year when you are tested for the consequences of taking the treatment for the last revealed problem?
I saw in the WSJ about a year ago that the FDA was getting ready to approve 5 new reactive protein tests. Well, the c-reactive-protein test has been of some benefit in diagnosing early-stage heart disease. Maybe. Or maybe it has just increased sales of Lipitor(tm); no one is sure. What about these 5 new proteins? Should we all be tested for them? Why?
sPh
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want them to cancel, but I do want them to jack up your rates. If you're expected health care costs do to voluntary behavior are higher them mine, it's only fair that you pay for the difference.
After all, I have a 0.056% chance per year of getting lung cancer (169,400 cases per year, 300 million US citizens, easy math).
Except that most lung cancer is caused by smokin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news shooting yourself in the face only increases chance of death by 0.1% per year. (6 million cases per year, 6 billion people in the world, easy math)
You can have my vital signs ... (Score:3, Funny)
Welcome to 2020 ... (Score:3, Informative)
Social Implications (Score:2)
Disease is more than an individual issue. The idea of continuously updated, massive data bases can also have effects upon people who are not ill. For example a person building up to a heart attack behind the wheel of a truck is something we all need to be protected from. Perhaps we may one day be able to spot people who are about to go off the deep end with mental illness. That also might save more lives than just that of the disturbed person. And it goes without saying that illegal drug use and alcohol
Tried that, didn't work (;-)) (Score:2)
As an example, the daily fluctuations in CPU utilization of hundreds of thousands of individual machines could be tracked and charted 24/7 to determine a baseline from which abnormalities and patterns could be extracted. The possibilities are enormous.
And, just to make it more fun, the metrics they collect will be the ones the developers needed, not the ones you need to manage the system. Or, worse, the ones that are easiest to measure.
That isn't to say that you won't be able to do some interesting sta
Dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that the state is responsible for the cost of your health care, getting the chip won't be voluntary. Needless to say, if the monitors detected something life-threatening, they'd have to be able to send someone to help you; that means they also have to know where you are.
We know where you are, we can read all your bio-signs, and we are mandated to protect our investment in health care. Don't run so fast. Keep it down to one orgasm. Put down that cigarette. That's your last coffee for today. Sound silly? Remember when we were silly to suggest they'd be banning smoking in bars next?
Yah--we really look forward to having our chips installed. Am I the only one who would prefer a long painful death?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I didn't know I was on Medicare. Coulda swore I was on Blue Cross.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep it down to one orgasm.
Stop giving them ideas! And if you have to give them ideas, don't give them that one!!!
I don't think so (Score:2, Informative)
Will it have "remote disconnect" (Score:2)
We just discovered that electric meters now come with not only remote reading, but "remote disconnect".
There will be pressure to put that into humans. Anybody who gets out of line could be "remotely disconnected".
Not thinking things through (Score:3, Interesting)
The possibilities are enormous.
Indeed. Maybe in 2050 our descendants will read
People look back and find it unbelievable that just a few short years ago hundreds of bodily vital signs were not continuously anticipated and monitored by medical implants for the majority of the populace. ... The huge amounts of data that are accumulated from millions of continuously monitored people are nothing short of a revolution for the control of the population and the detection of doubt and hostility to the thoughts of our beloved leader.
Stress level warnings (Score:2)
"sir please stop stressing over your stress level"
"sir your stress level is still rising"
"sir, i must stress, that if you stress level doesn't lower, your health might be in danger"
The possibilities are enormous (Score:2)
The possibilities are enormous.
The possibilities for government or corporate abuse are enormous. Governments would love some way of remotely deactivating people as soon as they step out of line.
The body monitors its own status. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Did you ever stop to think how silly and also how dangerous it is to live our lives with absolutely no monitoring of our body's medical status?"
The body monitors its own status continously and constantly takes corrective actions. The process is called homeostasis, a word invented by Walter B. Cannon in the 1930s although the concept is much older.
You might as well say:
"Did you ever stop to think how silly and dangerous it is to live our lives with absolutely nothing monitoring our posture to keep us from falling over?"
"Did you ever stop to think how silly and dangerous it is to walk around with absolutely no electrodes on our chests to keep our hearts beating?"
"Did you ever stop to think how silly and dangerous it is to walk around with absolutely no portable diathermy machine to hold our body temperature at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit?"
This is not to say that canes and electronic pacemakers... and, for all I know, portable diathermy machines... might not be helpful to some people, but the body has a great capacity to take care of itself without medical intervention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the borg started when V'ger merged with Commander Decker.
Either way the analogy is a good one. There is nothing governments would love more than reducing the entire population to drones. Actually most of the population are already there.
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is that death is natural, so it should simply be accepted?
And you're writing this on a plastic/metal/silicon computer connected to a global network, under artificial lights in a temperature-controlled man-made room powered by artificially generated electricity, wearing clothes made by machine out of petroleum or industrially-farmed cotton, after eating an extensively processed meal you ate with teeth that have filled cavities?
About the only fully natural thing about the average first-wo