Reminds me of something I read in one of the Kurzweil books years ago: having nano-blood delivering enough oxygen to stay underwater for 8 hours. Things like that.
The (funny to me) idea that also came from that was that we can remove our digestive systems, because "eating mainly for nutrients" turns into "eating just for enjoyment", and we have a tray in our stomachs that we tap out to empty the chewed food.
There was a story here a few months ago from a guy who has severe Crohn's disease, with his gut fused to some other organ I can't recall in a way that prevented eating at all. He was able to survive via a direct infusion of nutrients into his blood, but the viscosity of the subtance would make it far too painful to inject by any normal IV route, so he needed a catheter inserted straight into his vena cava. And though this provided all the sustenance his body required for energy, because hunger hormones are produced in the gut, not eating will leave you perpetually hungry even if you actually have all the energy you need. The very existence of obesity should probably make it obvious this is possible, but removing our digestive systems may have unintended consequences. The way this guy described his experiences sounded like a pretty miserable existence.
In recent years the gut-brain axis [1] has been solidified as both real, causal, and critical. So just removing your gut would probably have severe consequences beyond just the more straight forward ones.
The whole concept sounds a bit wooish, and the Wiki article doesn't read like you'd expect it from a description of "real, casual, and critical" concept in medicine. Is there any other real set of factors that would make this particular "axis" special, vs. a pair or triple of any other organs that happen to be spaced far apart in the body?
I'm not sure how you get that conclusion or questions from the article:
---
Chemicals released by the gut microbiome can influence brain development, starting from birth. A review from 2015 states that the gut microbiome influences the central nervous system by "regulating brain chemistry and influencing neuro-endocrine systems associated with stress response, anxiety and memory function".[4] The gut, sometimes referred to as the "second brain", may use the same type of neural network as the CNS, suggesting why it could have a role in brain function and mental health.[5]
It's because it's a very new field. Few people would have ever thought diseases of the 'mind' could be related to the gut biome, so people are still actively researching exactly what is causing what. It's not because there's any question of whether this is an issue at all.
This is also an extremely important discovery, but it will have profound implications on modern health and diets. Everything from glyphosate to fake sugars has been argued to be harmless because we thought that they were largely inert. In reality they are having substantial impacts on the gut biome - the potential implications of this cannot be overstated, and so shooting wild and fast would be poorly advised.
Yeah i mean realistically just the port to “a tray in our stomachs” sounds like a nightmare. How do you make a port big enough to take the tray out? How do you prevent it from always getting infected? What do you do with the core muscles where the tray port goes? How do you clean the pouch where the tray resides? How will you make the tray-escophagus interface leak proof? What if someone with the tray in their stomach wants to do sports, or is in an accident? When they are shocked around will the tray mechanism tear their flesh and organs? Will the tray accomodate body shape changes during a pregnancy? Or changes due to old age? How will people know that their tray is full? Will they just start choking? How big the tray has to be to accomodate a family meal, but also be small enough to not feel as a burden during everyday activities?
The truth is that our body is marvelously complex, and dynamically adjusts to many challenges. It does this so seamlesly that we don’t even notice. That is why people come up with ridiculous ideas like this because they are not consciously aware of how amazing their body is at taking care of the job of keeping them alive.
The closest to this tray idea in reality is an ileostomy. And while it is better than dying, it has many risks and negative consequences. The idea that otherwise healthy individuals would willingly under go such a modification to their bodies is ludicrous.
Oh, i think Rumudiez meant it as a general recommendation to everyone who might be interested to learn more. Not specifically to me. Or at least that makes the most sense so i choose that interpretation.
But yeah, there is a lot of stories about patients with bad outcomes with colostomy bags. It sure beats dying of course. As a general rule of thumb: every time you cut into a human there is a high chance of things going wrong. The more you are changing after you cut into them the more likely and more severe the sideffects will be. (Very rough approximation of course.)
This is something i constantly think about cyborgs. They are a a staple of scifis, and usually portraied as stronger and faster than regular humans. But every cyborg with lets say a cybernetic arm would be medically an amputee. Every amputee can tell you that stumps suck. They get infected, or get pressure sores, or their skin gets irritated, etc etc unless you are treating them just right, and even then sometimes they hurt when you did everything right. How would you even grow metal and muscle/skin together without the meat constantly pulling away and getting infected? That is the real scifi not the brain-computer interface.
Anyone that has done a water fast for several days can vouch that you are not perpetually hungry. On a long fast the stomach basically shuts down. Hunger pangs do occur, but they subside after an hour or so. In my experience, three or four days or so into the fast the hunger pangs no longer occur unless you start thinking of eating. I've read that once fat reserves become exhausted then hunger pangs come back with an vengeance, as this is true starvation.
I'd note that this is a five year old article and I haven't heard of any followups. And the article itself may be misinterpreting the underlying actual research, which suggests that it's more about SSRIs:
Hypertension is not caused by the heart pumping too well, so this would not work for the purpose of curing hypertension. But if you could invent a durable heart replacement therapy, you'd save a lot of lives.
At that point, why not just let Neuralink tickle the right brain regions - seems more sensible than literally stuffing food into your mouth. Also seems closer to being achievable than nano blood.
Nano specifics aside, we can already feed people intravenously. We do not yet know how to electrically trick the brain in any meaningful and safe way.
I might also be crossing the streams on partially remembered text, but I believe the nano component of the blood was about engineered hemoglobin that was a more effective oxygen carrier, not glucose.
The (funny to me) idea that also came from that was that we can remove our digestive systems, because "eating mainly for nutrients" turns into "eating just for enjoyment", and we have a tray in our stomachs that we tap out to empty the chewed food.