this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
49 points (93.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

41218 readers
1888 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Let's imagine that organs can be perfectly grown in a lab and installed into a body without any chance of rejection or other complications usually associated with organ transplant.

You, a perfectly healthy adult human, go to the doctor and have them put a second heart in your chest that is connected to the circulatory system with your original heart.

What would be the effects of this? Could it even be done in this hypothetical situation at all?

all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 40 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It’s better, which is why we already do.

Mammals have a double circulatory system, with the left and right ventricles effectively acting as separate hearts that happen to be physically connected.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Citation needed. The junctions in cardiac cells make electrical signals propagate through them all, so acting independently isn’t something that’s normal. There’s two loops, but one pump. It’s a single system.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Even if they were physically separated you’d want them to pump in sync, to maximize the pressure. So having them share electrical signals is just the optimal setup for two hearts.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

you want to maximize flow, not pressure. maximizing pressure is a great way to die of stroke.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Not absolute pressure, but pressure per unit of work (i.e., efficiency).

[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago (2 children)

You'd also have to solve the problems of them working with each other instead of against each other.

What happens to your blood pressure? Do they beat at the same time then how do you mitigate the pressure spike. You now have twice the capacity your blood vessels are meant to handle.

If they don't beat at the same time how do you make sure blood does not just go back and forth between the hearts, but actually does something useful?

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago

If they're in series the pressure will increase, if they're in parallel the flow would increase. Just have a pacemaker organ connected to both to time the pumps. You could reduce blood pressure but increase the amount of blood flowing, therefore less wear and tear on the hearts, arteries, organs, etc.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Not a hole Keisha. A VALVE.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Perfectly healthy? Probably the only real advantage is redundancy, but that comes at the cost of complexity, and on balance, I’d guess that it’s a net negative.

Mostly because I can’t think of any organism that normally has 2 hearts. If there were real advantages, it seems, I dunno. Inevitable?

[–] Bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Pretty sure giraffes have 2 hearts, I think the brachiosaurus also had 2 hearts too. I have a feeling there was a fish or other ocean creature with multiple hearts and maybe another mammal?

Heres some info I found real quick. No giraffe, several sea creatures, a couple land animals, one dino maybe, and some vague ambiguity.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Giraffes are mammals and only have 1 heart. It's freaking huge, though, at 11 kilos.

octopus and cuddlefish and similar frequently have multiple "hearts" but they're not the same as mammalian hearts. Briachiosaurus probably had an even larger heart than a giraffe, but it was still a singular, 4 chambered hear.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

As others have pointed out the issues, I will answer a different question.

It would be cool to have a backup heart. It sits unused and quite until needed. Clearly some issues with experiencing the same conditions as the first heart. If it were biological, then it would weaken without use.

But a small pump to survive a heart attack would be nice.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

NAD.

Having said that, if your "primary" heart is having issues it's usually something that a second heart wouldn't be able to bypass.

For example, if the heart chambers are just fluttering then your second heart could try to take over, but I imagine that if the primary failing one would cause so much ruckus that the secondary wouldn't be able to keep up normal blood flow.

I imagine a better system with some electronics that can either work as a pacemaker or take over completely in an emergency situation by just plain stopping the heart and taking over until help arrives, or something like that.

Again, NAD

[–] trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I dont think it will be beneficial. It w would probably cause hypertension. And it's not like bodies have a lot of extra space now where you can fit a heart, so you'd be suppressing other organs.

Worse if you're not a Time Lord or an octopus (or other multi hearted animal). They'd probably beat out of sync and cause turbulence in blood flow, which is quite bad.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Without your body evolving to require it? It would be worse.

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The proverbial "two hearts in one chest" indicate a split mind, and create much pain.

It won't do no good. The two would work against each other.

Not only in the holistic meaning, also from a strictly materialistical / technical point of view, there is no way to make them work synchronized. It is the very nature of the heart to determine it's own rhythm.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 2 points 4 days ago

And even a singular heart can have some weirdness when it's own timing signals find alternate paths, like in some arrythmias.

I can only imagine the chaos of trying to keep signals synchronized between two hearts.