What's the minimum body parts you need to live?

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,332
249
106
I saw a pic of a lady with no arms or legs and thought to myself, that's pretty intradasting, and I started to wonder what else she could have had removed before she died.

For example, you could minus the chesticle area and I guess she could get her stomach removed (like fat people do to lose weight.) Maybe only a single lung, or just one liver.

Like, what's the bare minimum needed to survive? :confused:
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
I saw a pic of a lady with no arms or legs and thought to myself, that's pretty intradasting, and I started to wonder what else she could have had removed before she died.

For example, you could minus the chesticle area and I guess she could get her stomach removed (like fat people do to lose weight.) Maybe only a single lung, or just one liver.

Like, what's the bare minimum needed to survive? :confused:

Going by your post, I'm guessing it's possible to survive without a brain.
 

coldmeat

Diamond Member
Jul 10, 2007
9,229
136
106
A person with no arms or legs would need someone else to feed them, so they really don't have body parts that they would need to survive.

If this person can rely on people to help, why not machines? Then all that would really be needed would be a brain right?
 

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,332
249
106
A person with no arms or legs would need someone else to feed them, so they really don't have body parts that they would need to survive.

If this person can rely on people to help, why not machines? Then all that would really be needed would be a brain right?

Kinda like those Futurama heads? What if you had an artificial lung? Like how much actual body is necessary..?
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
Given an extreme and expensive application of modern technology, you might be able to go without: arms, legs, bladder, spleen (for sure), kidneys (not easy).

I'm not sure about the overall digestive tract - you could perhaps supply all nutrients IV, at least hypothetically. You've got to have a liver and pancreas though. Maybe there's a way around that, but not today.

Lungs are more difficult to replace than you might think, but if you can figure out a way to oxygenate and remove CO2 very quickly, with no clotting type issues... well why not. You can get rid of most of the bones, but keep at least one large one around (a hip or a femur, whatever) for the marrow.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,344
126
My wife has seen and done a couple hip disarticulations

OR I support had one of those last week. Staff was very anxious and a lot of buzz going on days before hand. It was the first one they had done in years.
 

ussfletcher

Platinum Member
Apr 16, 2005
2,569
2
81
zero

fertilized eggs have no body parts yet are living people
76115-Joker_not_sure_if_serious.jpg
 

CrazyAznDriver

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2010
1,200
0
0
OR I support had one of those last week. Staff was very anxious and a lot of buzz going on days before hand. It was the first one they had done in years.

She saw the result of a guy getting caught in the wheel well of a semi truck :/ not a pleasant experience.
 

So

Lifer
Jul 2, 2001
25,923
17
81
I saw a pic of a lady with no arms or legs and thought to myself, that's pretty intradasting, and I started to wonder what else she could have had removed before she died.

For example, you could minus the chesticle area and I guess she could get her stomach removed (like fat people do to lose weight.) Maybe only a single lung, or just one liver.

Like, what's the bare minimum needed to survive? :confused:

I think I found a video of you.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=136555&title=zoidberg-physical
 

arkcom

Golden Member
Mar 25, 2003
1,816
0
76
Given an extreme and expensive application of modern technology, you might be able to go without: arms, legs, bladder, spleen (for sure), kidneys (not easy).

I'm not sure about the overall digestive tract - you could perhaps supply all nutrients IV, at least hypothetically. You've got to have a liver and pancreas though. Maybe there's a way around that, but not today.

Lungs are more difficult to replace than you might think, but if you can figure out a way to oxygenate and remove CO2 very quickly, with no clotting type issues... well why not. You can get rid of most of the bones, but keep at least one large one around (a hip or a femur, whatever) for the marrow.

Millions of people live just fine with no functioning pancreas, and have for some time.
 

SKORPI0

Lifer
Jan 18, 2000
18,469
2,409
136
I've heard some members here in ATOT function well without a brain. ;)
 
Last edited:

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Given an extreme and expensive application of modern technology, you might be able to go without: arms, legs, bladder, spleen (for sure), kidneys (not easy).

I'm not sure about the overall digestive tract - you could perhaps supply all nutrients IV, at least hypothetically. You've got to have a liver and pancreas though. Maybe there's a way around that, but not today.

Lungs are more difficult to replace than you might think, but if you can figure out a way to oxygenate and remove CO2 very quickly, with no clotting type issues... well why not. You can get rid of most of the bones, but keep at least one large one around (a hip or a femur, whatever) for the marrow.


Wrong, many people have their pancrease remove and live long lives.
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,903
0
0
A bus drove over a guys finger once and he died on the scene. The human body is not a machine. If a vital organ goes you go if no help is around.
 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
43
91
A bus drove over a guys finger once and he died on the scene. The human body is not a machine. If a vital organ goes you go if no help is around.

Yeah but that's no what the OP is saying. There are clearly organs that are non vital. So the question is what is the minimum you would need to survive. Given modern medicine I thing the answer is probably pretty horrible. D:
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,903
0
0
Yeah but that's no what the OP is saying. There are clearly organs that are non vital. So the question is what is the minimum you would need to survive. Given modern medicine I thing the answer is probably pretty horrible. D:

You can live without a Spleen but die the next day of ammonia. Its not if you survive its how long you can survive without it. Without machines and needles stuck in you all day not long