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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.