Why is cancer such a bad thing? Some cancer cells rebuild their tylomeres and if spread all over the body would slow down aging or even stop it. Futhermore cancer cells require blood and nutrients so ill burn more calories and wont be fat. I would also love some braincancer to get some extra brain cells or a bigger kidney so i could binge drink more
Cancer man could be a superhero, nanana nanana nana Cacer man! He would be extra smart, won't age and can drink endlessly.
>>7939320
>Why is cancer such a bad thing?
Mainly, if not solely, because it kills people. Like it kills people all the time.
>ugly as fuck from all of my quasivestigial hyperbolic cyborgcancers
>in the end, the tradeoff was worth it now when i could just squeeze a gland in my brain with some muscle fibers of cancer to get high on synergetic PCP
>>7939320
You're on to something actually. The goal is not only to harness the immortality of cancer cells, that's actually the easy part. The problem is CONTROL. It takes only 1 rogue cell to spawn deadly tumors. If we could achieve complete control (nanobots maybe?), then humans will match plants in possessing conditional immortality.
>Inject modified cancer stem cells into body
>They spread throughout the body replacing all current cells
>Shut down replication mechanism
>Completely new person
>>7939478
Would it survive such a systemic process? I doubt it. Even if it does I think the end result would be a healthy vegetable.
>>7939499
Replacing the nervous system would never work but organ replacement therapy is realistic.
>>7939320
>Why is cancer such a bad thing?
it kills people. it's a malfunction
>Some cancer cells rebuild their tylomeres and if spread all over the body would slow down aging or even stop it.
You're retarded.
>Futhermore cancer cells require blood and nutrients so ill burn more calories and wont be fat.
shit baiting
>I would also love some braincancer to get some extra brain cells or a bigger kidney so i could binge drink more
I suggest visiting Dr. Shipman for your exams. He's an excellent physician.
>>7939320
This is like asking why throwing bricks at a building won't make it stronger. Or pouring petrol over your car won't make it faster.
Maybe you should binge drink less, so that you don't need (a basic misunderstanding of) biological science to have a functioning brain.
>>7939320
This has to be bait. No one could be that stupid
>cancer is just a really slow biological fork bomb
my god
>>7939677
Huh. I guess that's one way of looking at it.
Many people in this thread aren't explaining why cancer is a bane - likely because they've never heard of or seen a person with untreated cancer.
Right from the get go, cancer cells often lose specialization or gain inappropriate specialization. Imagine tissue that's too soft or too hard. This is the cause of the horrible bumps, spots and pits.
The cancer cells can produce inappropriate molecules, causing other parts of your body to function incorrectly. This can cause organ failure, general bad health, and early aging.
When the cancer begins to form tumors, it means it has access to the blood, and proceeds to grow wildly and spread the above all over the body. Mystical visions, psychosis, violent rage, catatonia, pain, vomiting, constipation, anorexia, etc can all occur - I've been by some terrible bedsides.
However, there's a potency to cancer that these people claim to feel - like an alien presence. I wouldn't be surprised if most religious people who have visions have cancer, since all the people I've known who were untreated for it reported it.
I don't think consciousness is ended by cancer. I think that a mound of cancer descended from neurons would be just as good as a brain. In the right medium, the cancer cells could become nothing but the nervous system of an artificial body.
Survive the cancer by embracing it. Maybe this is just the result of seeing people I knew die without treatment.
>Why is cancer such a bad thing?
Because it can kill.
>>7940722
Everything in existence can kill.
>>7939453
Not much of a sci guy but can't allosteric regulation of enzymes help with that?
>>7940729
Maybe. You would need to gain reliable control over the biochemical pathways governing the "hardware" related to longevity. At the right point in development. In the right cells. To the appropriate degree. With minimal off-target effects. Pharmaceuticals will have off-target effects by definition due to sharing affinity for multiple receptors and enzymes that are structurally related. Similar things will occur using genetic engineering techniques.
Even to simply destroy tumors in a selective fashion, many of these technologies (prodrugs, targeted immunotherapy, precision CRISPR/ Cas 9 gene editing) are still in their infancy.
>>7939320
I asked my biology teacher once if it was plausible to farm meat by providing cancer cells in a growth medium. In so many words.
She said it was possible but it would 'taste awful' so I abandoned the idea.
But what if I could genetically engineer kind of cancerous cell that fed off the biological components that make animals delicious?
I could grow massive cancerburgers in a huge industrial vat that would taste like mutton or pork for a fraction of the cost of conventional ranching.
>>7939320
>why is cancer bad
SENPAI pls
>>7941956
>cancerburgers
McDonalds beat you to the punch.
>>7939320
Cancer doesn't have to be the only reason for a cell to be immortal though right? Best to control healthy cells to be immortal, than to control fucked cells to not fuck up in ways we don't want it to.
We're pretty well at square one with either, too
>>7941956
It'd be better to "farm" molluscs like clams. I don't feel like that'd be awfully efficient though. Maybe feed a genetically modified giant clam that heals quickly, and have it eat trash, or somehow make it synthesize it's own food with some other method? Not sure we could just tape plant parts on, but we could probably make something work later.
The future sure does have a lot of shit in store. Can't wait for [x] flavoured [x] textured modified "clam"
>>7941956
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-27/mark-post-synthetic-beef/6352860
>>7939478
Even if the proliferation of the cells were to be controlled, that doesn't mean that these cells are fully functioning, healthy cells. For example, leukemic cells proliferate to the point at which normal, healthy cells begin to be essentially "overtaken" by the leukemic ones, and these leukemic cells do not mature to the point at which they function properly as blood cells
Cancer is the solution to immortality. We just need to control the mitosis.
>>7939331
Pretty sure cancer man is Deadpool.
>>7939514
The issue there is that the nervous system is absolutely integral. Some structures would be irreplacable. If you cant replace the entire system then its pointless.
You are correct OP.
Only plebs are afraid of cancer.
Can we please get a:
>implying cancer is bad
meme?
>>7939320
>Why is cancer such a bad thing?
Metabolic disruption. Your brain only works because the neurons are still connected to each other the same way they were yesterday.
>>7942333
This is already the site-wide autism board. We don't need the extra publicity.
>>7939320
>>7942334
ah, I see your namefag autism isn't limited to just /x/
>>7939453
> nanobots<human brains
> concentration+awareness=
CONTROL
>>7939337
whats so bad about population control
>>7939320
I hope you are trolling
Im puting my fucking dick in the microwave today! Gonna get that 8 inch wonder
>>7939320
>cancer cells require blood and nutrients so ill burn more calories and wont be fat
For fuck's sake man....
