Type 1 Diabetes Informative Speech
Imagine you’re having pizza with your friends. As you reach for a second slice, you think about your needle--and then you remember you don’t have to give shots anymore. Before, you couldn’t just eat whenever you wanted; before you had Type 1 Diabetes. Everyday you had to count carbohydrates and give the correct dosage of insulin for the predicted amount of carbs you might consume. Now, an internal artificial pancreas recognizes an increase in blood sugar and automatically supplies the correct amount of insulin to your blood stream. No more finger pricks. No more shots. No more carb counting. Now, there’s a machine inside of you that constantly controls your diabetes. This new apparatus has changed your life, and you can hardly remember a few
…show more content…
years ago when technology like this was not yet available. Type 1 Diabetes is a chronic disease that is caused by the failure of the pancreas when the beta islet cells stop producing insulin.
An artificial pancreas would use synthetic methods to generate insulin. This would create an easier lifestyle by eliminating the numerous shots and allowing for better diabetes management and control. More importantly, it would greatly change the lives of diabetics that will allow for a healthier A1c (average glucose concentration), leading to fewer complications and a longer life expectancy. Diabetics are constantly checking their blood sugar but perhaps to no avail. The U.S. Senate and Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs claim in The Potential of an Artificial Pancreas Improving Care for People with Diabetes: “studies have found that even patients who aggressively manage their disease… still spend less than 30 percent of their day in the normal range,” (2). If an artificial pancreas were invented, the lives of Type 1 diabetics would be forever impacted, living longer, healthier lives through more efficient diabetes management by maintaining normal range blood sugars. Gregg Braden points out in his chapter of The Mystery of 2012: Predictions, Prophecies & Possibilities, “Perhaps the best way to discover what we don’t know is to take a look at what we do know” (5). In order for the artificial pancreas to be generated, recent and past technologies are combined to develop the artificial pancreas and improve the lifestyle …show more content…
of diabetics. Diabetes is often associated with needles, one-use strips, finger pricks, and a strict diet in order to control it. This is changing. Diabetic management is evolving alongside technology. When the pump was released to the public, it was viewed as if it was a cure for diabetes rather than a tool that simply eased the process. A device that could directly shoot insulin into your body with a push of a button? It was a miracle! Sounded too good to be true; and it was. It’s not an artificial pancreas nor is it a cure. While the pump was a breakthrough product that made a lengthy process a little more bearable, it was not a means to an end. It was another step towards an artificial pancreas.
The insulin pump was a turning point for diabetes research. At the time, speculation about the artificial pancreas was the goal that scientists strived for, but were not certain how to reach. Outlook on the invention was not great and did not seem attainable at the time until the pump was made.
In 1995, the insulin pump was widely introduced to the public. Since then, many modifications have been made to increase its effectiveness. The continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy that flows through the insulin pump involves a tube connected to an insertion site on the patient’s body through which it injects insulin. Technology today has altered the pump to be more electronic. It is now able to record logs and generate different insulin profiles. The device has also evolved to be smaller, waterproof, and to require smaller, less painful insertion sites. This cosmetic aspect is preferred by young diabetics so that it is less noticeable and they don’t get as many “What’s that?” questions about their pumps. While children don’t always like wearing pumps because of the many questions they get asked, the benefits it provides are important for diabetic control.
Insulin infusion pumps have many benefits that the artificial pancreas can also have. It decreases the risk of activity-induced hypoglycemia (low blood sugars during exercise) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (low blood sugars during the night). It also leads to more controlled blood sugar readings since it can inject insulin based off of how many carbohydrates are in a meal, similar to what an artificial pancreas would do. This is life-changing for diabetics because it requires less blood sugar checks and puts the patient at ease. Imagine having to be up an extra hour before you go to bed because your blood sugar was low. With an insulin pump, you would have less pre-bedtime lows. But with an artificial pancreas, it could possibly eliminate them all together.
According to Bruce Bode in Diabetes management in the new millennium using insulin pump therapy, “CSII is able to simulate, as closely as possible, the function of the islet cells prior to their destruction, and to do so in a more precise and user-friendly format than multiple daily injections” (2). In 2002, this is how the insulin pump was viewed: a better alternative to shot injections. Now, diabetics and researchers are looking ahead to what can replicate the function of islet cells to replace the pancreas. While the insulin pump is not an artificial pancreas, the pump is highly used in research for it, as well as other diabetic technology.
The newest technology available to the public is the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM). Ten years ago, adults with Type 1 Diabetes started using CGMs. Even more recently, DexCom released a CGM approved particularly for children since Type 1 is most commonly diagnosed during the juvenile years. Most patients are hesitant to use it at first because it’s another sensor on your body. But after just a few days of wearing it, they can’t imagine life without it. More and more patients are wearing it because they can control their blood sugars more. In just a few years, the CGM has quickly transformed and improved to achieve more accurate blood sugar readings.
Continuous glucose monitors consist of a sensor attached to the body and a receptor that the patient carriers around with them. The sensor transmits readings to the receptor usually every few minutes. The receptor has to be within ten to twenty feet in order to read the blood sugar readings transmitted by the sensor. So, the patient always has to have the receptor on them in order for the CGM to work correctly. This can sometimes be a hassle to the patient because he or she has to carry around multiple objects, instead of having a single artificial pancreas.
The results provided by CGMs are not always accurate. In their book In Vivo Glucose Sensing, David Cunningham and Julie Stenken argue “the time-dependent results are now generally available to the patient, but they are advised to use the continuous monitoring systems to detect ‘trends’, while using the more reliable ‘fingerstick’ systems to confirm results” (5). Doctors recommend this to patients since the CGM displayed blood sugars are not always correct. If the device isn’t calibrated correctly, then the readings will be incorrect. This occurs because the sensor’s needle measures the glucose concentration of the interstitial fluid, not the blood stream. In order for an artificial pancreas to be pursued, consequences and problems of current technology must be corrected first. In “ A Singularity In Time”, Peter Russell writes “The reason for this acceleration is that each new development is standing on the shoulders, so to speak, of what has come before” (18). Applying this to the artificial pancreas, in order for it to be produced, then the technology before it must be cleared all complications. Since the technology will build off of one another, you cannot create an artificial pancreas that has the same problems as previous technology like CGMs and insulin pumps. By improving current technology, future developments will also be improved as well as the lives of diabetics.
These technologies will ultimately lead up to the development of an artificial pancreas. If this were to be successful, then the lives of diabetics and our understanding of diabetes as a whole would be forever changed. Research is currently being done on a closed feedback loop system. As Jacob Jaremko explains in his journal “Advances Toward The Implantable Artificial Pancreas For Treatment Of Diabetes,” “To achieve a closed feedback loop, a clinically applicable implantable artificial pancreas requires miniaturization and coordination of three components: an insulin pump, a blood glucose monitor, and a control system,” (1). Two of these components have already been developed: an insulin pump and a blood glucose monitor. Building a bridge between these two devices will result in the artificial pancreas. Now, they need to be improved so they can all work together as one unit: an artificial pancreas.
An implantable blood glucose sensor, similar to a CGM, would be used to measure the glucose concentration in the interstitial fluid. The blood sugar reading would then be sent to a monitor where an algorithm would be performed, determining the amount of insulin to give. An implantable pump would receive this information and inject the insulin to the blood stream, as if it were an actual pancreas. Roman Hovorka determined the algorithm so that it would take into account time of insulin absorption, digestion rate, body temperature, and other factors. This algorithm is extremely important to the closed feedback system because it determines how much insulin should be given and when. Without this, development of the artificial pancreas would be lagging and would not be as advanced as it is today. Trials with this closed feedback loop system are already being conducted, with some minor complications.
Complications along the way to the final product of an artificial pancreas have slowed down the progress. One of the major obstacles is the storage and preservation of the insulin in the implantable pump. As M. Zoltobrocki points out in her essay “Insulin Delivery by Implantable Pumps” in Pathogenesis and Management of Human Diabetes Mellitus: Workshop at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the European Society for Clinical Investigation 1989, Athens, Greece “The stability of insulin has been a significant impediment in the development of such devices for treatment of diabetes. Insulin has a tendency to precipitate, aggregate in high molecular weight forms, and denature,” (140). If insulin were to precipitate, aggregate, or denature, it would be deadly for the patient. The insulin would not function and the patient would not have any insulin without knowing that the implantable pump was malfunctioning, resulting in diabetic ketoacidosis due to inadequate insulin. Another obstacle that occurred during trials was the foreign body reaction to the implantable pump. Some immune systems would reject the pump due to poor biosensor-tissue compatibility. The tissue around the site would become inflamed or would develop scar tissue around the wound site. But, when these complications are fixed, the rewards will outweigh the risks.
The major benefit of the artificial pancreas is the decrease in complications, leading to a longer, healthier life. Since the artificial pancreas will be able to sense a rise or drop in blood sugar, it can give the correct insulin dosage at the right time. This will account for the blood sugars being in normal range so the patient will have a better A1c (the average of glucose concentration over a 3 month period) The more controlled diabetes is, the less likely complications are to occur. Jaremko in his research Diabetes Care: Advances Toward the Implantable Artificial Pancreas for Treatment of Diabetes makes the same point: “The ultimate goals of fully automatic glucose control by an artificial pancreas include prevention or delay of chronic complications of diabetes, lowered risk of hypoglycemia, and less patient inconvenience and discomfort than with multiple daily glucose self-tests and insulin injection” (1). These are words of joy to a diabetic’s ears. Throughout a diabetic’s life, he or she is constantly hearing about lower limb amputations, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, and more. Knowing that an artificial pancreas could help prevent these complications is a big deal. It is the leading reason why many diabetics want an artificial pancreas, in conjunction with a less complicated lifestyle.
Envision you are out at dinner and have to give a shot. Almost always someone asks why. “Why did you just give yourself a shot?” “Was that heroin?” “Are you okay? That isn’t normal.” Diabetics have heard it all. But if the artificial pancreas were available to the public, then diabetics wouldn’t have to give shots every few hours. Wouldn't it be nice to sit down to a meal without having to prick blood from yourself and give a shot? In The Potential of an Artificial Pancreas Improving Care for People with Diabetes, the U.S. Senate and Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs claims: “The average child with type 1 diabetes will have to take some 50,000 insulin shots in a lifetime” (1). With the invention of an artificial pancreas, there would be no more shots, just the replacement of the sensor every few weeks. This would reduce the monthly cost of diabetes, but the price would not decrease overall.
An artificial pancreas would be very expensive, especially when first introduced to the public. However, if it is as popular and life changing as predicted, then the cost would decrease. This reminds me of what Ervin Laszlo claims in “The Birthing of a New World” in The Mystery of 2012: “ sophisticated information systems rationalized and dropped the cost of production” (127). So, the cost of production would decrease as new technology came about to assist in its production. However, it is not guaranteed that insurance companies will assist with the cost. If insurance companies do not cover it, then the artificial pancreas won’t be accessible by everyone who needs it. Some insurance companies may not cover it because they may not view it as necessary. Some may think that it’s not safe or needs to be researched more. And others may view it as harmful.
Harmful technology. Technology is not always beneficial to civilization. It can also negatively affect society. Over the past few years especially, technology has consumed society. José Argüelles argues that we need a waking up in “The Mayan Factor”: “Our waking up will mean that we actually see that technology can’t help us and that we have to go beyond it” (77). Technology can damage us, but can also be very advantageous. Hopefully, the artificial pancreas will be created and can be beneficial to diabetics. With the invention of the artificial pancreas, researchers can learn more information about diabetes and how the body responds to the implantable pump. They can then build off of this information and apply it to the research for a cure. A cure for diabetes is highly unlikely currently, but the creation of an artificial pancreas can change that. Since the artificial pancreas uses a method to inject insulin into the body without shots, it can be used as a step towards a cure. It can provide scientists with a new outlook on diabetes and can provide new clues about how failed islet cells work and how to repair them. In this way, technology is put to good use. Most of the time, technology impairs us. Technology is changing the way we communicate, the way we live, the way we think. It is also destroying our relationship with nature. In Last Child in the Woods, Richard Louv argues that we’re suffering from “nature-deficit disorder” (34). This is because technology is drawing us away from nature. It’s gradually turning us into robots. If the artificial pancreas can be produced, it can lead to the production of other artificial organs. Artificial lungs, artificial kidneys, artificial brains. This technology can go very far with the possibility of turning people into machines. Humans could one day become immortal because as an organ fails, it could just be replaced with a machine. With the production and research of these artificial pancreases and organs, humans are becoming less natural and more artificial.
José Argüelles points out in his chapter “The Mayan Factor” in The Mystery of 2012, “we are in resonance with the environment” (72). However, these new technologies are causing humans to lose resonance with the environment, as we become robots. Not saying that diabetics want to become robots, they just want to live a healthier, more normal life with fewer complications. An artificial pancreas would remove us from the environment because it is the start of the process of artificial organs. This is to be expected because if it were invented, then it would lead to the invention of other artificial
biotechnologies. The development on an artificial pancreas would greatly affect the lives of diabetics by leading to a longer life expectancy because of more controlled blood sugars. Scientists in the research of this emerging technology are using past diabetic developments. The release of the artificial pancreas would start a domino effect and lead to the development of other artificial organs and possibly a cure. As more artificial organs are created, humans are becoming more artificial than natural, removing humans from resonance and nature.
years ago when technology like this was not yet available. Type 1 Diabetes is a chronic disease that is caused by the failure of the pancreas when the beta islet cells stop producing insulin.
An artificial pancreas would use synthetic methods to generate insulin. This would create an easier lifestyle by eliminating the numerous shots and allowing for better diabetes management and control. More importantly, it would greatly change the lives of diabetics that will allow for a healthier A1c (average glucose concentration), leading to fewer complications and a longer life expectancy. Diabetics are constantly checking their blood sugar but perhaps to no avail. The U.S. Senate and Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs claim in The Potential of an Artificial Pancreas Improving Care for People with Diabetes: “studies have found that even patients who aggressively manage their disease… still spend less than 30 percent of their day in the normal range,” (2). If an artificial pancreas were invented, the lives of Type 1 diabetics would be forever impacted, living longer, healthier lives through more efficient diabetes management by maintaining normal range blood sugars. Gregg Braden points out in his chapter of The Mystery of 2012: Predictions, Prophecies & Possibilities, “Perhaps the best way to discover what we don’t know is to take a look at what we do know” (5). In order for the artificial pancreas to be generated, recent and past technologies are combined to develop the artificial pancreas and improve the lifestyle …show more content…
of diabetics. Diabetes is often associated with needles, one-use strips, finger pricks, and a strict diet in order to control it. This is changing. Diabetic management is evolving alongside technology. When the pump was released to the public, it was viewed as if it was a cure for diabetes rather than a tool that simply eased the process. A device that could directly shoot insulin into your body with a push of a button? It was a miracle! Sounded too good to be true; and it was. It’s not an artificial pancreas nor is it a cure. While the pump was a breakthrough product that made a lengthy process a little more bearable, it was not a means to an end. It was another step towards an artificial pancreas.
The insulin pump was a turning point for diabetes research. At the time, speculation about the artificial pancreas was the goal that scientists strived for, but were not certain how to reach. Outlook on the invention was not great and did not seem attainable at the time until the pump was made.
In 1995, the insulin pump was widely introduced to the public. Since then, many modifications have been made to increase its effectiveness. The continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy that flows through the insulin pump involves a tube connected to an insertion site on the patient’s body through which it injects insulin. Technology today has altered the pump to be more electronic. It is now able to record logs and generate different insulin profiles. The device has also evolved to be smaller, waterproof, and to require smaller, less painful insertion sites. This cosmetic aspect is preferred by young diabetics so that it is less noticeable and they don’t get as many “What’s that?” questions about their pumps. While children don’t always like wearing pumps because of the many questions they get asked, the benefits it provides are important for diabetic control.
Insulin infusion pumps have many benefits that the artificial pancreas can also have. It decreases the risk of activity-induced hypoglycemia (low blood sugars during exercise) and nocturnal hypoglycemia (low blood sugars during the night). It also leads to more controlled blood sugar readings since it can inject insulin based off of how many carbohydrates are in a meal, similar to what an artificial pancreas would do. This is life-changing for diabetics because it requires less blood sugar checks and puts the patient at ease. Imagine having to be up an extra hour before you go to bed because your blood sugar was low. With an insulin pump, you would have less pre-bedtime lows. But with an artificial pancreas, it could possibly eliminate them all together.
According to Bruce Bode in Diabetes management in the new millennium using insulin pump therapy, “CSII is able to simulate, as closely as possible, the function of the islet cells prior to their destruction, and to do so in a more precise and user-friendly format than multiple daily injections” (2). In 2002, this is how the insulin pump was viewed: a better alternative to shot injections. Now, diabetics and researchers are looking ahead to what can replicate the function of islet cells to replace the pancreas. While the insulin pump is not an artificial pancreas, the pump is highly used in research for it, as well as other diabetic technology.
The newest technology available to the public is the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM). Ten years ago, adults with Type 1 Diabetes started using CGMs. Even more recently, DexCom released a CGM approved particularly for children since Type 1 is most commonly diagnosed during the juvenile years. Most patients are hesitant to use it at first because it’s another sensor on your body. But after just a few days of wearing it, they can’t imagine life without it. More and more patients are wearing it because they can control their blood sugars more. In just a few years, the CGM has quickly transformed and improved to achieve more accurate blood sugar readings.
Continuous glucose monitors consist of a sensor attached to the body and a receptor that the patient carriers around with them. The sensor transmits readings to the receptor usually every few minutes. The receptor has to be within ten to twenty feet in order to read the blood sugar readings transmitted by the sensor. So, the patient always has to have the receptor on them in order for the CGM to work correctly. This can sometimes be a hassle to the patient because he or she has to carry around multiple objects, instead of having a single artificial pancreas.
The results provided by CGMs are not always accurate. In their book In Vivo Glucose Sensing, David Cunningham and Julie Stenken argue “the time-dependent results are now generally available to the patient, but they are advised to use the continuous monitoring systems to detect ‘trends’, while using the more reliable ‘fingerstick’ systems to confirm results” (5). Doctors recommend this to patients since the CGM displayed blood sugars are not always correct. If the device isn’t calibrated correctly, then the readings will be incorrect. This occurs because the sensor’s needle measures the glucose concentration of the interstitial fluid, not the blood stream. In order for an artificial pancreas to be pursued, consequences and problems of current technology must be corrected first. In “ A Singularity In Time”, Peter Russell writes “The reason for this acceleration is that each new development is standing on the shoulders, so to speak, of what has come before” (18). Applying this to the artificial pancreas, in order for it to be produced, then the technology before it must be cleared all complications. Since the technology will build off of one another, you cannot create an artificial pancreas that has the same problems as previous technology like CGMs and insulin pumps. By improving current technology, future developments will also be improved as well as the lives of diabetics.
These technologies will ultimately lead up to the development of an artificial pancreas. If this were to be successful, then the lives of diabetics and our understanding of diabetes as a whole would be forever changed. Research is currently being done on a closed feedback loop system. As Jacob Jaremko explains in his journal “Advances Toward The Implantable Artificial Pancreas For Treatment Of Diabetes,” “To achieve a closed feedback loop, a clinically applicable implantable artificial pancreas requires miniaturization and coordination of three components: an insulin pump, a blood glucose monitor, and a control system,” (1). Two of these components have already been developed: an insulin pump and a blood glucose monitor. Building a bridge between these two devices will result in the artificial pancreas. Now, they need to be improved so they can all work together as one unit: an artificial pancreas.
An implantable blood glucose sensor, similar to a CGM, would be used to measure the glucose concentration in the interstitial fluid. The blood sugar reading would then be sent to a monitor where an algorithm would be performed, determining the amount of insulin to give. An implantable pump would receive this information and inject the insulin to the blood stream, as if it were an actual pancreas. Roman Hovorka determined the algorithm so that it would take into account time of insulin absorption, digestion rate, body temperature, and other factors. This algorithm is extremely important to the closed feedback system because it determines how much insulin should be given and when. Without this, development of the artificial pancreas would be lagging and would not be as advanced as it is today. Trials with this closed feedback loop system are already being conducted, with some minor complications.
Complications along the way to the final product of an artificial pancreas have slowed down the progress. One of the major obstacles is the storage and preservation of the insulin in the implantable pump. As M. Zoltobrocki points out in her essay “Insulin Delivery by Implantable Pumps” in Pathogenesis and Management of Human Diabetes Mellitus: Workshop at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the European Society for Clinical Investigation 1989, Athens, Greece “The stability of insulin has been a significant impediment in the development of such devices for treatment of diabetes. Insulin has a tendency to precipitate, aggregate in high molecular weight forms, and denature,” (140). If insulin were to precipitate, aggregate, or denature, it would be deadly for the patient. The insulin would not function and the patient would not have any insulin without knowing that the implantable pump was malfunctioning, resulting in diabetic ketoacidosis due to inadequate insulin. Another obstacle that occurred during trials was the foreign body reaction to the implantable pump. Some immune systems would reject the pump due to poor biosensor-tissue compatibility. The tissue around the site would become inflamed or would develop scar tissue around the wound site. But, when these complications are fixed, the rewards will outweigh the risks.
The major benefit of the artificial pancreas is the decrease in complications, leading to a longer, healthier life. Since the artificial pancreas will be able to sense a rise or drop in blood sugar, it can give the correct insulin dosage at the right time. This will account for the blood sugars being in normal range so the patient will have a better A1c (the average of glucose concentration over a 3 month period) The more controlled diabetes is, the less likely complications are to occur. Jaremko in his research Diabetes Care: Advances Toward the Implantable Artificial Pancreas for Treatment of Diabetes makes the same point: “The ultimate goals of fully automatic glucose control by an artificial pancreas include prevention or delay of chronic complications of diabetes, lowered risk of hypoglycemia, and less patient inconvenience and discomfort than with multiple daily glucose self-tests and insulin injection” (1). These are words of joy to a diabetic’s ears. Throughout a diabetic’s life, he or she is constantly hearing about lower limb amputations, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, and more. Knowing that an artificial pancreas could help prevent these complications is a big deal. It is the leading reason why many diabetics want an artificial pancreas, in conjunction with a less complicated lifestyle.
Envision you are out at dinner and have to give a shot. Almost always someone asks why. “Why did you just give yourself a shot?” “Was that heroin?” “Are you okay? That isn’t normal.” Diabetics have heard it all. But if the artificial pancreas were available to the public, then diabetics wouldn’t have to give shots every few hours. Wouldn't it be nice to sit down to a meal without having to prick blood from yourself and give a shot? In The Potential of an Artificial Pancreas Improving Care for People with Diabetes, the U.S. Senate and Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs claims: “The average child with type 1 diabetes will have to take some 50,000 insulin shots in a lifetime” (1). With the invention of an artificial pancreas, there would be no more shots, just the replacement of the sensor every few weeks. This would reduce the monthly cost of diabetes, but the price would not decrease overall.
An artificial pancreas would be very expensive, especially when first introduced to the public. However, if it is as popular and life changing as predicted, then the cost would decrease. This reminds me of what Ervin Laszlo claims in “The Birthing of a New World” in The Mystery of 2012: “ sophisticated information systems rationalized and dropped the cost of production” (127). So, the cost of production would decrease as new technology came about to assist in its production. However, it is not guaranteed that insurance companies will assist with the cost. If insurance companies do not cover it, then the artificial pancreas won’t be accessible by everyone who needs it. Some insurance companies may not cover it because they may not view it as necessary. Some may think that it’s not safe or needs to be researched more. And others may view it as harmful.
Harmful technology. Technology is not always beneficial to civilization. It can also negatively affect society. Over the past few years especially, technology has consumed society. José Argüelles argues that we need a waking up in “The Mayan Factor”: “Our waking up will mean that we actually see that technology can’t help us and that we have to go beyond it” (77). Technology can damage us, but can also be very advantageous. Hopefully, the artificial pancreas will be created and can be beneficial to diabetics. With the invention of the artificial pancreas, researchers can learn more information about diabetes and how the body responds to the implantable pump. They can then build off of this information and apply it to the research for a cure. A cure for diabetes is highly unlikely currently, but the creation of an artificial pancreas can change that. Since the artificial pancreas uses a method to inject insulin into the body without shots, it can be used as a step towards a cure. It can provide scientists with a new outlook on diabetes and can provide new clues about how failed islet cells work and how to repair them. In this way, technology is put to good use. Most of the time, technology impairs us. Technology is changing the way we communicate, the way we live, the way we think. It is also destroying our relationship with nature. In Last Child in the Woods, Richard Louv argues that we’re suffering from “nature-deficit disorder” (34). This is because technology is drawing us away from nature. It’s gradually turning us into robots. If the artificial pancreas can be produced, it can lead to the production of other artificial organs. Artificial lungs, artificial kidneys, artificial brains. This technology can go very far with the possibility of turning people into machines. Humans could one day become immortal because as an organ fails, it could just be replaced with a machine. With the production and research of these artificial pancreases and organs, humans are becoming less natural and more artificial.
José Argüelles points out in his chapter “The Mayan Factor” in The Mystery of 2012, “we are in resonance with the environment” (72). However, these new technologies are causing humans to lose resonance with the environment, as we become robots. Not saying that diabetics want to become robots, they just want to live a healthier, more normal life with fewer complications. An artificial pancreas would remove us from the environment because it is the start of the process of artificial organs. This is to be expected because if it were invented, then it would lead to the invention of other artificial
biotechnologies. The development on an artificial pancreas would greatly affect the lives of diabetics by leading to a longer life expectancy because of more controlled blood sugars. Scientists in the research of this emerging technology are using past diabetic developments. The release of the artificial pancreas would start a domino effect and lead to the development of other artificial organs and possibly a cure. As more artificial organs are created, humans are becoming more artificial than natural, removing humans from resonance and nature.