OT: How Amazing

Captain Kwok · #1 March 24th, 2004, 06:40 AM

If they layed off some of the harshness re: stem cell research, we might even be able to regenerate your eyes for you Atrocities!

narf poit chez BOOM · #2 March 24th, 2004, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
If they layed off some of the harshness re: stem cell research, we might even be able to regenerate your eyes for you Atrocities!

Last I heard, stem cells were gotten from the unborn.
and I suggest that discussion break off here.

atari_eric · #3 March 24th, 2004, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
One good thing is that for people who have not been blind from birth, the brain is already wired and trained to process colour, depth perception, word shapes and all sorts of similar skills.

Simply providing a bridge over some damage to a brain that is ready and waiting for visual info is a much simpler prospect than trying to give someone a sense they have never had the use of before.

I'm not so sure. I think if you gave such a device to someone who didn't have eyes, their brain would learn to use the device using techniques optimized for the device, instead of adapting previous techniques from another organ...

dogscoff · #4 March 24th, 2004, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Last I heard, stem cells were gotten from the unborn.
and I suggest that discussion break off here.

Then you haen't been keeping up to date. Stem cells can now be found in all kinds of places that do not involved aborted foetuses or "the unborn" at all.

Imagine someone in need of a new kidney giving a DNA swab from their mouth, and having stem cells grown from that, and from those stem cells a new organ being grown specifically for them. Since the genetic material would be their own, there would be no (or very little) risk of rejection, which would make the process infinitely more successful.

Not to mention the fact that it spares a potential donor (assuming one can be found) the risk and inconvenience of having one of their own kidneys removed.

Here's a quote: "Adult stem cells have been isolated from numerous adult tissues, umbilical cord, and other non-embryonic sources," from
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/prentice.htm
That same site on adult stem cell research has a statement about its ethics in which it specifically states that it is opposed to taking cells from pre-birth sources: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/statement/index.html

[ March 24, 2004, 10:49: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

QuarianRex · #5 March 24th, 2004, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by atari_eric:

quote:
Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
One good thing is that for people who have not been blind from birth, the brain is already wired and trained to process colour, depth perception, word shapes and all sorts of similar skills.

Simply providing a bridge over some damage to a brain that is ready and waiting for visual info is a much simpler prospect than trying to give someone a sense they have never had the use of before.

I'm not so sure. I think if you gave such a device to someone who didn't have eyes, their brain would learn to use the device using techniques optimized for the device, instead of adapting previous techniques from another organ...

This is half true. The brain can adapt to just about anything, if you get to it fast enough. If the brain doesn't achieve certain key milestones during development it never will (or at least not up to a completely functional state). An example of this ould be "phantom limbs". Where an amputee can still feel their missing limb. This is quite prevalent among adult amputees because their brains have adopted a configuration that includes the missing limb. The brain essentially still has a 'slot' open for it. Child amputees, on the other hand, never have phantom limb. Their brain is still in development and so the unused portion of the brain devotes itself to other things. Simply, the brain edits out that the limb was ever there. This may mean that adult amputees would be eligible or cybernetic limp replacement but a now-grown child amputee would not.

Of course there could always be workarounds. Using unrelated motor impulses to stimulate the new limb would be posible but awkward (imagine having to control all of your leg movements using kugi-kiri hand gestures).

Ragnarok-X · #6 March 24th, 2004, 09:21 PM

Mankind always developes new technologies. Its just that the time between major steps seems to grow proportional. Im not talking about different engines (i.e. oil -> hydrogen) but rather steps like animals->engines->? and stuff.

I have to admit that, at the current position mankind stands still, is maybe even moving back. I dont know what will be in a few douzen years, but if things not change fundamentally we will go back a few hundred, if not even more, years.
Technology is all good and fine, until certain people decide technology shouldnt be used for human's good.

narf poit chez BOOM · #7 March 25th, 2004, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

Last I heard, stem cells were gotten from the unborn.
and I suggest that discussion break off here.

Then you haen't been keeping up to date. Stem cells can now be found in all kinds of places that do not involved aborted foetuses or "the unborn" at all.

Imagine someone in need of a new kidney giving a DNA swab from their mouth, and having stem cells grown from that, and from those stem cells a new organ being grown specifically for them. Since the genetic material would be their own, there would be no (or very little) risk of rejection, which would make the process infinitely more successful. etc...

Well, that's a load off my mind.