/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3909505

I disagree. If i replaced my joints with metal ones I'd never suffer from joint pain and they could be easily replaced. Even I was eugenically selected from the best possible specimens there's an upper limit on biological systems as to how complex and self-repairing they are: energy.

I would have to eat constantly to maintain enough energy to achieve what a machine can do for a far lower energy expenditure. Plus machines don't mutate and eventually develop cancer, which is always a risk regardless of your genetics. Mechanical parts don't contract diseases, (computer virus aside, this isn't Deus Ex), they don't have days when they just feel shitty and they can be constantly upgraded with extremely reliable results whereas biological systems always have a chance of just not fucking working.

Ask any biologist and they'll tell you a number of experiment just don't fucking work regardless of how well you set them up.

http://www.vancouversun.com/what+price+immortality/5100429/story.html

Can we officially change the term "bioethicist" to "death-worshiping Luddite?" It seems the sole job of a bioethicist is to tell us why nature is perfect and we would have no souls/ lose our humanity if we changed ourselves physically with technology. Apparently the naturalistic fallacy is lost on Somerville.

>>2874525
Computers can get messed up, sure, but biology's not much better. The advantage of being a cyborg is no more disease. We don't have to worry about a cure for cancer or AIDS, or any infectious disease.

>http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/01/bioethicists-cant-handle-the-t
>http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2011/01/viewpoints_should_we_test_for.html
Why are bioethicists so against the idea of having an informed public?
>A final lesson from the history of bioethics is the consensus that if you can't offer a patient anything to prevent or to ameliorate a terrible disease, why test for it?
This is possibly the most rage-inducing thing I've ever heard from a scientist. So testing for incurable diseases is pointless? If you read further, he mentions that because it's not just the individual affected, it's the whole family, so it's better to live in ignorance for their peace of mind. Don't you think it's better to have incomplete information than no information at all?
>http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0809578
This study says knowing that you may have a risk for a disease in the future causes no severe psychological problems. Yet bioethicists feel that we should remain ignorant for our own good. The FDA will literally take any excuse to regulate genome testing.
>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/118231.php
It's as if a little knowledge of you biological flaws will send you spiraling into depression.

Haha, go back to living in a cave, I'll be flying through space experiencing NOT A SUNRISE, BUT A GALAXY RISE. Immortality e is the only way forward.

Hello, since /sci/ is the closest thing to a medical board, I have a question. I have a horrible headache and loss of appetite. I'm not asking you to cure me, it's probably the flu or something gay. But I have a shitton of homework to do, and I can't afford to spend time in bed getting better. Is there any way to keep myself alive for two more days, even though I feel awful?