this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
218 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
76229 readers
3688 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
sounds like saying “we already have a lung in our body why make an iron lung.”
Like I know obviously it’s not like plug this into your spine and cure paralysis but I could definitely be very useful.
Not quite, an iron lung replaces a dysfunctional organ. I'm saying we can already grow neurons onto circuits, and it's difficult (not impossible) to implant neurons into a body. I don't easily see how these bio-engineered neurons make those processes easier.
Fair, I suppose I understand the idea but like... idk I can think of MANY reasons (patent bullshit, could be useful, or prove to be cheaper, or developed further into something better) why having something similar to an already existing process is still good. Look at Sodium batteries potentially now being 10% of the cost of lithium ones, even if they're a similar but generally worse storage technology. I don't think it should be a requirement that a new process or discovery have an inherent reason/advantage. Shit like that is how we end up with leaded gasoline.
It's more like saying, "we can already grow new lungs, why make an iron lung?"