Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the wired-for-health dept.

A man with metal horns protruding from his forehead and a split tongue poking out between his teeth advanced toward me with a scalpel. "I've never done this before," he joked, inching closer.

A full-sleeve tattoo snaked out from beneath his black T-shirt, extending from a demon on his bicep to a skull on his fist. My eyes darted between skull and scalpel, then instinctively shut as I cringed, bracing for contact. Zack Watson, the inked-up body modification artist I'd hired — and drove seven hours from New York City to see — was about to sew a magnet under my skin.
...
Biohacking enthusiasts have tinkered with electronic tattoos and subdermal — underneath-the-skin — implants for two decades, sharing their efforts in videos on YouTube and internet forums to spread and encourage innovation. Proponents believe smart implants represent the future of wearable technology, potentially making humans healthier and more efficient while providing new opportunity to consumer-technology companies such as Apple Inc. AAPL, -0.34% and Alphabet Inc. GOOGL, -0.71% GOOG, -0.57% that are investing heavily in technology that could revolutionize health care.

All of these predictions [quoted in the article] come as global adoption of wearables is forecast to boom. Juniper Research, which tracks consumer technology trends, expects world-wide wearable shipments to reach 420 million by 2020, more than four times the 80 million shipped in 2015. A similar surge is predicted for medical devices, with shipments projected to triple to 70 million over the next four years.

Trans-humanism has been around for a while, but the article focuses on the investment capital that is now flowing into the area.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by number6x on Thursday November 17 2016, @03:00PM

    by number6x (903) on Thursday November 17 2016, @03:00PM (#428127)

    I have a Bone Anchored Hearing Aid (BAHA) [earassociates.com], to compensate for deafness in one ear due to Meniere's Disease. I would not consider it 'cybernetic' in any way.

    It involves a metal stud drilled into my skull bone to help transmit sound around my head. I would also not consider your magnet cybernetic. A person should be able to detect anything you think you can detect with a magnet attached to the outside of the skin that you can seem to perceive with your implanted magnet.

    The same holds true for implanted RFID tags, replacement eyeball lenses (Intraocular lenses), or limb replacements that do not interface with the wearer's nerves or muscles. None of them are really cybernetic.

    While my hearing device, an IOL or a limb replacement actually serve a useful purpose and replace lost or damaged functionality of some organ or body part, as opposed to just being some fad, I still would not consider them 'cybernetic'.

    Insulin pumps, pacemakers, limbs that move in response to nerve signals or muscle contractions should be considered cybernetic. I think there would have to be a certain 'active' interaction with the body's systems for it to be considered cybernetic. Having a passive connection, like my BAHA device, an intraocular lens or your magnet should not really be considered cybernetic.

    Obligatory xkcd [xkcd.com].

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @03:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @03:21PM (#428138)

    I thought the obligatory XKCD for this discussion would have been 644: Surgery [xkcd.com]

    • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:30PM

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:30PM (#428248) Journal

      I thought the obligatory XKCD for this discussion would have been 644: Surgery [xkcd.com]

      Agree. Came for this.

    • (Score: 2) by number6x on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:51PM

      by number6x (903) on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:51PM (#428349)

      For me, comparing my Bone Anchored Hearing Aid to "Dude, I got a magnet under my skin 'cus piercings and tattoos are so 20th century" makes me think of the tattoo xkcd.

      But your xkcd is pretty hardcore too!

  • (Score: 1) by Magneto on Thursday November 17 2016, @03:27PM

    by Magneto (6410) on Thursday November 17 2016, @03:27PM (#428140)

    I can see your point. For me whether it is "cybernetic" or not isn't really the point. I can now feel things I couldn't before and to me that's what matters.

    You're partially right about sticking a magnet to the outside of your skin. That would work in a similar way and you would get similar sensations, though I expect it would be a lot less sensitive. However having it permanently inside you for a long period of time changes the way you perceive the sensation. To me it doesn't feel like there's something attached to me that's moving, it actually feels like a part of myself. I don't know whether the same effect would occur with an externally attached device.

    • (Score: 2) by number6x on Thursday November 17 2016, @04:29PM

      by number6x (903) on Thursday November 17 2016, @04:29PM (#428185)

      Yes, and the super glue would wear off now and then :)

      People with Meniere's disease in both ears often completely lose their sense of balance.

      Recently a device that is based on a set of accelerometers and two 'patches' attached to your skin has been tested for these people. The patches are about as long and wide as a stick of Wrigley's chewing gum. They are oriented at 90 degrees to each other.. As the accelerometers tip one way or the other, the wearer 'feels' little electric shocks moving along the strips one way or another. They say the shocks feel like bubbles against the skin. The further the accelerometer is tipped, the stronger the flow of the 'bubbles'.

      Amazingly, even though these people have lost the nerve impulses from their inner ears, the wearer's brains quickly learn to interpret the signals on their skin, from the accelerometers, and associate the 'bubbles' with the data coming from the wearer’s eyes. They develop a new sense of balance based on nerve input from the skin, and not from the inner ear. They can often begin to walk and orient them selves while wearing the devices and their constant 'falling' vertigo is diminished.

      The brain learns to compensate and make due with other input signals. It is all done at a subconscious level, the brain interprets the input naturally. The user doesn't spend time thinking 'oh, the bubbles are doing this, so I know which way is up'. The brain just takes care of the input and interprets it.

      Your brain, interpreting input from your implant, is probably similar.

      I would suggest two long thin magnets, maybe as long as a centimeter in length, oriented at 90 degrees to each other. see if the brain could use the stimulation to determine direction.

      Part of the device for a vestibular prostheses: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwik9p2VmbDQAhWs7YMKHaeeBWQQFggwMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F1424-8220%2F14%2F7%2F13173%2Fpdf&usg=AFQjCNHfXIT4bf89mYCw5D3r9LbqooKPmw&sig2=GQo5K_QjFdp0dQa3ieYGgg&bvm=bv.139138859,d.amc [google.com]

  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 17 2016, @04:08PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday November 17 2016, @04:08PM (#428166)

    I'm hoping they'll develop some IOLs soon which will really be cybernetic, or at the very least will totally replace a normal lens and provide proper vision, both near and far-sighted and everything in-between. But even better would be if it overlaid your vision and provided additional data, like those scenes in the Terminator movies.

    • (Score: 2) by number6x on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:29PM

      by number6x (903) on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:29PM (#428383)

      Future biotech!

      We need a good way to power those things.

      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday November 18 2016, @01:34AM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday November 18 2016, @01:34AM (#428548) Homepage Journal

        Present, not future. They're powered by the same muscles that focus a young person's eyes (see earlier comments). I have one implanted. We live in the future!

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday November 18 2016, @12:59AM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday November 18 2016, @12:59AM (#428538) Homepage Journal

      It was approved by the FDA in 2003, I had one implanted in 2006. My vision is now better than 20/20 at all distances in that eye, it was 20/400 before. I'm 64 and don't need reading glasses or any other vision aids.

      I'm getting the other eye done soon. Look up CrystaLens. If you can wait until 2023, all IOLs will be variable focus, since the patent will expire.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 18 2016, @04:10PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:10PM (#428897)

        Wow, that looks really interesting. I wonder how it achieves variable focus? Does it tie into the existing lens muscles? Their website is pretty scant on details, and Wikipedia's article on IOLs basically says that these lenses don't exist yet and that IOLs are fixed-focus.

        Can these things also correct for a little nearsightedness? If so, one of these would be perfect for me. I'm starting to have problems with changing focus, and one of my eyes is a little nearsighted anyway.

        Was yours implanted because of cataracts, or just poor vision? Their website only seems to tout them as a solution for cataracts.

        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:41PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:41PM (#429692) Homepage Journal

          My surgeon explained it to me. It sits on struts and is situated inside the lens capsule after the lens is removed. The eye's focus muscles stretch or relax the lens capsule and in a young person, the lens inside it. In middle age the lens gets too hard to stretch.

          The way it's situated, the stretching or loosening of the muscles on the lens capsule moves the IOL lens back and forth. You have to exercise those muscles after surgery for a few weeks, because they've likely atrophied.

          As to Wikipedia, the other lens manufacturers keep editing it out. I tried to add something right after surgery, and it was gone in a week. This is what makes Wikipedia itself a little iffy; gasoline companies can alter, for example, articles about global warming. FDA approval in 2003 and nobody can get this technology included.

          I had a cataract in that eye from some steroid eye drops a different medical center had prescribed. Insurance will pay for a standard fixed-focus lens, and these are $1,000 more each, but it was the best money I ever spent. They will do the surgery for nearsightedness and farsightedness (farsightedness is normal in middle age, and you can be both nearsighted and farsighted at the same time) but the manufacturer pushes them for cataracts.

          I'd recommend asking your eye doctor about them the next time you see him or her, they know a hell of a lot more than I do about that subject (or should). If you're not that old I'd wait until 2023 when the patent expires, all IOLs will be variable focus after then.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 21 2016, @03:48PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday November 21 2016, @03:48PM (#430571)

            If it works that great, I'm not sure I want to wait 6 more years. Roughly how much was this per eye? Personally I'm nearsighted, slightly. If this corrects a little nearsightedness too, and lets me focus properly, it sounds great to me. I'm young enough that my focus muscles haven't atrophied: I'm able to focus, it's just taking longer than before, and I've noticed that if I do close-up work too long my eyes get "stuck" and it takes a bit for them to reset so I can see distant things again.

            • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday November 21 2016, @04:51PM

              by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Monday November 21 2016, @04:51PM (#430637) Homepage Journal

              It probably varies by surgeon, but the Prairie Eye Center charged me and my insurance company about $14,000 for the eye I had done. Getting the other one done soon (if I get off my lazy ass and do it).

              --
              mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
              • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 21 2016, @05:50PM

                by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday November 21 2016, @05:50PM (#430697)

                Hmm.. I wonder if it'd be a lot cheaper to have it done somewhere else, like Belgium.

  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday November 18 2016, @12:50AM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday November 18 2016, @12:50AM (#428534) Homepage Journal

    You're a cyborg if it was an implanted device and improved your hearing; that's the definition. I have a variable focus eye implant, so I'm a cyborg, too.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org