Topic: Don't lose your head! Full-body transplants will be possible within two years - page 2. (Read 3997 times)
February 10, 2018, 02:50:38 PM
ISIS could make a lot of money. If they would only keep the bodies on ice when they chop a head off, they could sell the bodies for full-body transplants.
February 10, 2018, 11:00:16 AM
no i dont believe full body transplant within two years for me that is impossible maybe for the future not now
It's been two years. At the time, someone in the thread asked that it be revisited in two years. Progress has been made, but, no, it didn't happen.
Lol. I don't think op that opened this up seriously thought that this is possible. Unreal to say the least. Even single body parts aren't that simple to replace, how much more for an entire body. And even if that becomes a possibility, we may not be around anymore if such technology is ready to use
February 10, 2018, 09:24:35 AM
This will make life easier for the transgenders. If they want to become biological females, then they just need to transplant their head to some female's body. But the question is whether we want to encourage this mental disease or not.
February 10, 2018, 03:53:42 AM
Haвepнякa пoдoбныe oпepaции пpoдeлывaлиcь нeoднoкpaтнo. Дo нac пpocтыx oбывaтeлeй тaкaя инфopмaция нe cкopo дoйдёт. Дa и нe пoзвoлят тaкoe oглaшaть в CMИ.
February 10, 2018, 03:27:17 AM
no i dont believe full body transplant within two years for me that is impossible maybe for the future not now
It's been two years. At the time, someone in the thread asked that it be revisited in two years. Progress has been made, but, no, it didn't happen.
February 10, 2018, 01:12:26 AM
no i dont believe full body transplant within two years for me that is impossible maybe for the future not now
February 04, 2018, 01:32:51 AM
Big mistake. The surgery went too far, it was a little scary.
The operation is unlikely to be successful because your spinal cord is direct to your brain. If the spinal cord is damaged, it is likely to cause paralysis, and we have not yet learned how to reconnect the spinal cord nerves.
The operation is unlikely to be successful because your spinal cord is direct to your brain. If the spinal cord is damaged, it is likely to cause paralysis, and we have not yet learned how to reconnect the spinal cord nerves.
Only partially correct. We know how, we don't have the necessary precision yet. It has been done, with partial success.
February 04, 2018, 12:57:01 AM
Big mistake. The surgery went too far, it was a little scary.
The operation is unlikely to be successful because your spinal cord is direct to your brain. If the spinal cord is damaged, it is likely to cause paralysis, and we have not yet learned how to reconnect the spinal cord nerves.
The operation is unlikely to be successful because your spinal cord is direct to your brain. If the spinal cord is damaged, it is likely to cause paralysis, and we have not yet learned how to reconnect the spinal cord nerves.
February 04, 2018, 12:53:00 AM
Full-body transplants will be possible within two years, says controversial surgeon Sergio Canavero
A worthy comment from the site:
What do you guys think?
Quote
The world’s first full-body transplant – in which someone’s head would be sewn onto a donor body – could take place in just two years, according to a controversial surgeon.
Quote
Mr Canavero said: “I think we are now at a point when the technical aspects are all feasible. If society doesn't want it, I won't do it. But if people don't want it in the US or Europe, that doesn't mean it won't be done somewhere else. I'm trying to go about this the right way, but before going to the moon, you want to make sure people will follow you
A worthy comment from the site:
Quote
Soon we will see 'rich wise heads on young shoulders'. Now the Western oligarchs will finally find some use for the younger poor and disadvantaged (So long as they have a healthy body)
What do you guys think?
Imagine how scary it is for the future of humanity, where bodies are just pots for our souls and these pots could be shattered and broken just to fix another broken pot. It is unnatural and it might give rise to more flesh trade where humans are just another body for the head of a rich man.
I agree. It's kinda scary. But I want to know and I'm curious on what might happen in this transplant. It sounds impossible and futuristic but we won't know what might happen. If it became a success, then it would be a bit creepy. Now that rich people can buy any body they want.
February 03, 2018, 06:59:08 AM
yeah, I"m necroing a thread. Deal with it.
You're welcome bro!
I've been following this topic, more or less, and Dr. Sergio Canavero, who is behind the full-body transplant idea, seems to have partnered with his Chinese colleague Ren Xiaoping. They have decided to conduct the first live full-body transplantation, an aptly euphemism for head transplantation not to scare people out of their pants, in China because the Chinese government seems to be friendly to such controversial experiments. A few months ago they had already transplanted a head between two human cadavers and now they are going to start with paralyzed patients who are bedridden and don't have much to lose anyway. You may want to read this recent article if you are interested.
February 02, 2018, 11:49:58 PM
yeah, I"m necroing a thread. Deal with it.
Two years have passed, and I find nothing saying they did it.
However, there were a number of questions and speculations in this thread that bear re-examination. At this point, nanometer scale manufacturing is commonplace. Assemblers do not yet exist, or if they do it is a very well kept secret. The prerequisites for their existence are no longer speculative, and that is FAR beyond the bounds of this doctor's probably fraudulent claims.
Dr. Aubrey de Grey has stated many times that the first man to reach 150 has likely already been born, with far less radical interventions than are theoretically possible with nanotech assemblers.
As was noted earlier in the thread, immunosuppressant therapies are now commonplace, and I personally know someone who was cured of terminal cancer by stem cell implantation.
Cyberpunk isn't dead, it's just not fiction anymore.
Being able to direct our own evolution is essentially inevitable. The consequences will be many, some intended and some not.
The ethical concerns are also many. But far less so than chopping off somebody's head in order to preserve another person. So, I am going to present an ethical argument IN FAVOR of life extension. The words are mine, the arguments are not. Though I came to the same conclusion, it was Dr. deGrey who convinced me of the inevitability of human immortality, though he dislikes the term. Or at least claims to.
I will dismiss out of hand the religious argument that death is natural. I find the people who promulgate such nonsense while being immunized against various diseases, going to doctors and, if need be, specialists, etc. to maintain their health far beyond the 'natural' span offensive, as well as morally bankrupt. If you actually believed that crap, you'd never see a doctor. Disease is natural too. We have spent countless lifetimes intentionally curbing or eradicating it. This is not a valid argument.
One I won't dismiss, and that gets brought up frequently as a "counter" to those of us desiring life extension, is the spectre of overpopulation. This one is actually a valid concern, but it's misplaced. It will happen anyway, as we have no natural predation sufficient to keep our open ended and unrestricted reproductive system in check. Life extension may exacerbate that problem by a few years. Maybe as much as a decade, if everyone living today were made undying. I'll come back to this, there is a solution. It is not, properly, an argument against life extension. It is a problem unto itself that MIGHT be exacerbated by life extension.
Another that I hear frequently expressed is the idiotic idea of becoming bored with living. Boredom, frankly, is brought on by either captivity (rare) or being boring. Other than that, it's a passing mood. As show stopping arguments go, it's ludicrous. There is a whole universe to explore, and if the proponents of string theory are correct, possibly many more. Besides, if life bores you that much, do the ecosystem a favor and become fertilizer. Yeah, I said that.
And that brings me back to overpopulation. I'll write much more on these intertwined subjects later, but the answer to overpopulation lies in the above paragraph. There is a WHOLE UNIVERSE that we have not explored. The biggest obstacle to interstellar exploration is our lifespan, as with our current understanding of the physical world, we cannot go faster than just a bit below the speed of light. Not by acceleration, at any rate. Which means that the distances are daunting. Given time dilation, this is less of a bugbear than people make it, but shipboard people would by necessity be a separate nation unto themselves, as ships would have a population that ages much more slowly (in comparison) to those left behind. Life extension actually eases this burden, as those who care to live will be around when the ships return.
But even within our own solar system, we've barely begun. Terraforming Mars appears to be well within our technological reach. Likely was around the time I was born, aside from sufficient rockets, which came to fruition just 8 months later.
Moreover, since it is LIKELY that such therapies would be based on nanotechnology, the problem of only the wealthy having access to it should decline very rapidly. It's going to happen that way, frankly, but it need not remain that way. The very wealthy will have it first because they will be the ones who can finance the initial research! This is not "unfair", it's simply inevitable. The only way to have it immediately widely disseminated would be to get a government to commit to the project via taxation for a very long time. While the idea of a hundred year 'special' tax is likely to appeal to every politician that ever lived, keeping that project as the actual recipient of the funds would simply not happen. Politicians are motivated by a lust for power, primarily, and any good they might do with it if they achieve it is at best a secondary consideration. Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions. But I've met a lot of politicians in my life, and not one of them failed to have that obvious lust for power. Not even Ron Paul, even though I do believe he meant well. So it falls to the very wealthy, and due to the jealousies and prejudices that allow civilization to be centrally ruled, it must needs be done in secret. This, I object to, but I am not unrealistic about it.
However, the man who finances and develops such therapies will be able to name his price. At first. If he's smart enough to build a system of open ended life extension, he's likely also smart enough to know that charging everyone a small amount is far more sustainable and desirable than charging a few exorbitant amounts. Besides, he would likely have friends and family that he wanted to keep around, and after a decade or so, the secret would no longer be secret.
Once it is known that it is possible, others will develop it, even if they don't have access to the initial research. We have seen this again and again with technology. What is revolutionary today is commonplace, mass produced, and done by machines in a very short period of time. Rapid development and deployment of technology at levels that were science fiction when I was a young adult are yesterday's news. This will happen.
Further, the inevitable development of nanotech assemblers is going to fundamentally alter how we interact with the universe REGARDLESS of whether it is applied to medical technology. So ALL of these things need to be addressed.
And, of course, one of my personal favorite reasons for having unlimited lifespans: "What the Captain meant" will become a historical phrase, cuz the captain will be able to speak for himself.
To be revisited.
Two years have passed, and I find nothing saying they did it.
However, there were a number of questions and speculations in this thread that bear re-examination. At this point, nanometer scale manufacturing is commonplace. Assemblers do not yet exist, or if they do it is a very well kept secret. The prerequisites for their existence are no longer speculative, and that is FAR beyond the bounds of this doctor's probably fraudulent claims.
Dr. Aubrey de Grey has stated many times that the first man to reach 150 has likely already been born, with far less radical interventions than are theoretically possible with nanotech assemblers.
As was noted earlier in the thread, immunosuppressant therapies are now commonplace, and I personally know someone who was cured of terminal cancer by stem cell implantation.
Cyberpunk isn't dead, it's just not fiction anymore.
Being able to direct our own evolution is essentially inevitable. The consequences will be many, some intended and some not.
The ethical concerns are also many. But far less so than chopping off somebody's head in order to preserve another person. So, I am going to present an ethical argument IN FAVOR of life extension. The words are mine, the arguments are not. Though I came to the same conclusion, it was Dr. deGrey who convinced me of the inevitability of human immortality, though he dislikes the term. Or at least claims to.
I will dismiss out of hand the religious argument that death is natural. I find the people who promulgate such nonsense while being immunized against various diseases, going to doctors and, if need be, specialists, etc. to maintain their health far beyond the 'natural' span offensive, as well as morally bankrupt. If you actually believed that crap, you'd never see a doctor. Disease is natural too. We have spent countless lifetimes intentionally curbing or eradicating it. This is not a valid argument.
One I won't dismiss, and that gets brought up frequently as a "counter" to those of us desiring life extension, is the spectre of overpopulation. This one is actually a valid concern, but it's misplaced. It will happen anyway, as we have no natural predation sufficient to keep our open ended and unrestricted reproductive system in check. Life extension may exacerbate that problem by a few years. Maybe as much as a decade, if everyone living today were made undying. I'll come back to this, there is a solution. It is not, properly, an argument against life extension. It is a problem unto itself that MIGHT be exacerbated by life extension.
Another that I hear frequently expressed is the idiotic idea of becoming bored with living. Boredom, frankly, is brought on by either captivity (rare) or being boring. Other than that, it's a passing mood. As show stopping arguments go, it's ludicrous. There is a whole universe to explore, and if the proponents of string theory are correct, possibly many more. Besides, if life bores you that much, do the ecosystem a favor and become fertilizer. Yeah, I said that.
And that brings me back to overpopulation. I'll write much more on these intertwined subjects later, but the answer to overpopulation lies in the above paragraph. There is a WHOLE UNIVERSE that we have not explored. The biggest obstacle to interstellar exploration is our lifespan, as with our current understanding of the physical world, we cannot go faster than just a bit below the speed of light. Not by acceleration, at any rate. Which means that the distances are daunting. Given time dilation, this is less of a bugbear than people make it, but shipboard people would by necessity be a separate nation unto themselves, as ships would have a population that ages much more slowly (in comparison) to those left behind. Life extension actually eases this burden, as those who care to live will be around when the ships return.
But even within our own solar system, we've barely begun. Terraforming Mars appears to be well within our technological reach. Likely was around the time I was born, aside from sufficient rockets, which came to fruition just 8 months later.
Moreover, since it is LIKELY that such therapies would be based on nanotechnology, the problem of only the wealthy having access to it should decline very rapidly. It's going to happen that way, frankly, but it need not remain that way. The very wealthy will have it first because they will be the ones who can finance the initial research! This is not "unfair", it's simply inevitable. The only way to have it immediately widely disseminated would be to get a government to commit to the project via taxation for a very long time. While the idea of a hundred year 'special' tax is likely to appeal to every politician that ever lived, keeping that project as the actual recipient of the funds would simply not happen. Politicians are motivated by a lust for power, primarily, and any good they might do with it if they achieve it is at best a secondary consideration. Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions. But I've met a lot of politicians in my life, and not one of them failed to have that obvious lust for power. Not even Ron Paul, even though I do believe he meant well. So it falls to the very wealthy, and due to the jealousies and prejudices that allow civilization to be centrally ruled, it must needs be done in secret. This, I object to, but I am not unrealistic about it.
However, the man who finances and develops such therapies will be able to name his price. At first. If he's smart enough to build a system of open ended life extension, he's likely also smart enough to know that charging everyone a small amount is far more sustainable and desirable than charging a few exorbitant amounts. Besides, he would likely have friends and family that he wanted to keep around, and after a decade or so, the secret would no longer be secret.
Once it is known that it is possible, others will develop it, even if they don't have access to the initial research. We have seen this again and again with technology. What is revolutionary today is commonplace, mass produced, and done by machines in a very short period of time. Rapid development and deployment of technology at levels that were science fiction when I was a young adult are yesterday's news. This will happen.
Further, the inevitable development of nanotech assemblers is going to fundamentally alter how we interact with the universe REGARDLESS of whether it is applied to medical technology. So ALL of these things need to be addressed.
And, of course, one of my personal favorite reasons for having unlimited lifespans: "What the Captain meant" will become a historical phrase, cuz the captain will be able to speak for himself.
To be revisited.
July 02, 2015, 02:01:10 PM
That brings new meaning to the label parasitic aristocracy.
Yeah, and a whole new meaning to the phrase "give head".
June 25, 2015, 01:01:04 PM
I got lasik eye surgery a couple years ago and my vision is great, except when the eye (usually it's one) gets sort of dry, then no matter how perfectly shaped your cornea is, if the rest of mechanisms of the eye aren't in good shape, you'll not have a perfect vision. I've tried eyedrops but don't work long term.
Have you looked into Visomitin eye drops (pardon the pun), which are supposed to improve chronic dry eye? They seem to be at the stage of approval for phase 3 trials right now by the FDA (if you happen to live in the US)...
Also, you may want to read this thread of the longecity.org forum
June 25, 2015, 12:42:01 PM
Surely a full body transplant would be to transplant someone mind/soul into another body, now that would be impressive.
June 25, 2015, 12:01:18 PM
20/20 vision forever
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/19/the-8-minute-surgery-that-will-give-you-superhuman-vision-forever/
also 3x better!
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/19/the-8-minute-surgery-that-will-give-you-superhuman-vision-forever/
also 3x better!
I got lasik eye surgery a couple years ago and my vision is great, except when the eye (usually it's one) gets sort of dry, then no matter how perfectly shaped your cornea is, if the rest of mechanisms of the eye aren't in good shape, you'll not have a perfect vision. I've tried eyedrops but don't work long term.
June 25, 2015, 11:47:08 AM
lol.... this will be interesting. For example, imagine if a billionaire is kidnapped by some con-men and his body is completely transplanted. All of his assets would now be under the control of the guy who has transplanted in to his body.
The body doesn't matter, the head does. The body is just another vessel, the head has the brain which realizes its own identity and the face helps others identify your identity. So, assuming if Mr.X is a billionaire and Mr.Y is the kidnapper, either scenario, the one with no head is dead.
June 25, 2015, 10:07:23 AM
20/20 vision forever
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/19/the-8-minute-surgery-that-will-give-you-superhuman-vision-forever/
also 3x better!
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/19/the-8-minute-surgery-that-will-give-you-superhuman-vision-forever/
also 3x better!
I got lasik eye surgery a couple years ago and my vision is great, except when the eye (usually it's one) gets sort of dry, then no matter how perfectly shaped your cornea is, if the rest of mechanisms of the eye aren't in good shape, you'll not have a perfect vision. I've tried eyedrops but don't work long term.
June 25, 2015, 09:52:44 AM
20/20 vision forever
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/19/the-8-minute-surgery-that-will-give-you-superhuman-vision-forever/
also 3x better!
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/06/19/the-8-minute-surgery-that-will-give-you-superhuman-vision-forever/
also 3x better!
June 25, 2015, 09:48:55 AM
Imagine how scary it is for the future of humanity, where bodies are just pots for our souls and these pots could be shattered and broken just to fix another broken pot. It is unnatural and it might give rise to more flesh trade where humans are just another body for the head of a rich man.
June 24, 2015, 11:17:52 AM
Full-body transplants will be possible within two years, says controversial surgeon Sergio Canavero
A worthy comment from the site:
What do you guys think?
Quote
The world’s first full-body transplant – in which someone’s head would be sewn onto a donor body – could take place in just two years, according to a controversial surgeon.
Quote
Mr Canavero said: “I think we are now at a point when the technical aspects are all feasible. If society doesn't want it, I won't do it. But if people don't want it in the US or Europe, that doesn't mean it won't be done somewhere else. I'm trying to go about this the right way, but before going to the moon, you want to make sure people will follow you
A worthy comment from the site:
Quote
Soon we will see 'rich wise heads on young shoulders'. Now the Western oligarchs will finally find some use for the younger poor and disadvantaged (So long as they have a healthy body)
What do you guys think?
It is all advancing so rapidly, this does look unimaginable, but it is quite possible, just given the fact that thing we thought were impossible couple years ago are now being developed.
Jump to: