Timeline for Would life expectancy increase if we replaced healthy organs with artificial ones?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2019 at 8:54 | comment | added | Luaan | Keep in mind that there's no reason to retire at a set age - if organ replacements increase your physical fitness, why not just keep working? Even today, most old people still do - even if it means just working in their garden or taking care of their vintage car, or... and most of the old people I know do keep working as long as they can anyway; they have no way to support themselves in retirement, especially if they don't want to move to a cheaper location, and people don't have much of a tradition for either saving up for retirement or caring for their elders. | |
| Feb 20, 2019 at 8:51 | comment | added | Luaan | @Serverfrog Not really; cancer confined to the skin doesn't kill you. What kills you are the toxic effects (and metastasis) on the other organs - if those aren't vulnerable to the toxins and cancer, you're not going to die. But in the end - so what, replace the cancerous skin. It's not like you have to replace all of it to be effective :) | |
| Feb 19, 2019 at 6:19 | comment | added | De Novo | @user189728 cancer is an infrequent cause of death for someone with mechanical organ replacement. This is because they either get off the mechanical organ replacement (bridge to allotransplant or recovery of original organ function) or die of infection, a vascular event, or multisystem organ failure. | |
| Feb 18, 2019 at 17:20 | comment | added | Serverfrog | @user189728 then you must replace our biggest organ: the skin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_cancer. And the Brain too. But do you then have a Human? | |
| Feb 18, 2019 at 16:17 | comment | added | user189728 | Cancer would be much less effective in killing someone with inorganic vital organs | |
| Feb 18, 2019 at 15:23 | history | edited | Elmy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
more typos
|
| Feb 18, 2019 at 15:20 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | Minor typos: "loose" is the opposite of "tight", the verb for "loss" is "lose" with a single "o". | |
| Feb 18, 2019 at 14:34 | history | edited | Separatrix | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Feb 18, 2019 at 13:28 | history | edited | Elmy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
minor spelling corrections
|
| Feb 18, 2019 at 13:02 | history | edited | Elmy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 51 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2019 at 12:25 | history | answered | Elmy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |