The Furry Forums
Furry Chat => General => Topic started by: Fawkes on May 31, 2012, 03:55:14 AM
-
Not entirely sure where this would go, but I'll try my luck with "general."
So, genetic engineering.
If science somehow managed to turn you into your fursona, would you do it? What are your views on genetic engineering? Would you have children who were furry? How about the idea of building a "perfect baby"?
-
Would i like to mutate into my fursona? Yes, that would be awesome.
I looked at this topic because, well, im a mad scientist. I have been working on how you could do this. The main two problems i keep running into are, im poorer then dirt, and chromosome count.
-
No, I woudn't.
I'm happy right now so why should I do it?
I looked at this topic because, well, im a mad scientist. I have been working on how you could do this. The main two problems i keep running into are, im poorer then dirt, and chromosome count.
I think... No I'm sure of it, You will become the best scientist if you can do this ;)
-
We are created from hundreds of millions of years of natural selection. Those with faults die, those without faults survive. Under such a long amount of time you'd think that the best of the best were the only ones left? I believe that's true if the process wasn't pretty much random, we've gotten what a pretty good system of our bodies, but it was all made randomly and through trial and error. I see the human body as a really messy program, it works fine, lags a bit and sometimes has the occasional bug, but the code itself is so messy and incomprehensible there is no chance of really editing the body without trial and error (aka medicine).
So I think genetic engineering could be a way to clean up the code. I think genetic engineering would be good, it would give a lot more freedom to people, allow people to live longer, survive better, maybe need less food or resource? The options are near limitless and we could really start to evolve humanity in the direction we want. That said, we're talking about changing a billion years of evolution, it's not something we're going to be able to get perfectly in 50 years, there's going to be mistakes and people will become deformed or killed. Bad things will come of it, to some people, in failed tests, things that we don't really understand, we are trying to be as careful of it as possible but there is basically no chance to have a perfect flawless system. It's whether the ends justify the means, in most cases I don't think they do, but here I think they might. A few dead people to save 7 billion people from extinction due to over crowding, disease, famine and resource?
I think genetic engineering is very complex, very hard to change, but it is possible. I think that it should be done.
-
You mentioned evolution. Don't you think that changing our genetics is a crime against nature? That it's morally wrong? Are we "playing God"? What about overpopulation?
-
anoni I disagree with you, the one who invents this get a lot of power, I don't think that all people can directly use it only the rish people.
So they can use it to make the world as they like.
Also I'm afraid for this, and then I think "I live well. why should I change this"
You mentioned evolution. Don't you think that changing our genetics is a crime against nature? That it's morally wrong? Are we "playing God"? What about overpopulation?
a man is his own boss, so it's his own choice. What
I fear is that someone will decide on several people
-
anoni I disagree with you, the one who invents this get a lot of power, I don't think that all people can directly use it only the rish people.
So they can use it to make the world as they like.
I don't think it's correct to say that genetic engineering will be invented by one person. But I do see what you mean, as science is funded by rich people and thus the rich people can have what they want. I don't think that means that we should lay off genetic engineering all together though, it just means we need to make sure it's used in the proper way. Science gives us the facts, it's up to us on how to use it.
You mentioned evolution. Don't you think that changing our genetics is a crime against nature? That it's morally wrong? Are we "playing God"? What about overpopulation?
No, I don't think changing our genetics is a crime against nature, I think it was natural for us to evolve in such a way so we can alter our genetics so we're not fighting nature. Yes, we may be playing god in the sense of going over people and as I said there probably will be mistakes, but I don't think that's wrong. Well, overpopulation depends, I doubt we'd genetically engineer things to intentionally overpopulate our society, so I don't know if overpopulation would be too much of an issue as long as we're smart about it.
-
I agree with you anoni, (i dont know how to use quotes with my cell.) Genetic engineering is not a crime. But there will always be people wanting to take it to far. (Resident evil's albert wesker is a good expansle.) genetic engineering is not the crime. Useing it for your gain only, is.
-
Have any of you seen the move GATTACA?
The movie trailer doesn't do it justice.
-
I have not, :P
What's it about? Is it related to Genetic engineering XD
And also, Wesker is awesome :P
-
Look up the episode "DNA" of the british comedy Red Dwarf.
But then also play bioshock
I don't think it's a crime or morally challenging. It would potentially save lives and even the planet.
We would be able to alter ourselves to handle new extremes and send the human race into a mass expansion across potentially even the universe.
However in the bioshock scenario, we're all buggered :D
-
I love the idea for Bioshock but I can't play it...I'm too jumpy.
GATTACA is about a society where everything about you is based on genetics, and people can genetically engineer their babies to be perfect, but it creates a hierarchy of people who are genetically engineered over those "faith born." So this guy has a younger brother who's genetically engineered and he is not. So basically, he steals another person's identity to have perfect genetics to get into GATTACA, which is a prestigous organization revolving around space exploration and stuff. It's a good movie.
-
I'm pro genetic engineering. Although perhaps not yet to that extent, mostly gene therapy. Been into that for years.
-
I'm pro genetic engineering. Although perhaps not yet to that extent, mostly gene therapy. Been into that for years.
Do you thing this is going happend, that people can change themself?
And also is this a good thing for the world?
(If you say that you're a [size=78%]genetic engineering.[/size][size=78%])[/size]
-
1. Sure, anything is possible
2. Yes :P
-
Get ready for the ultimate in genetic science.
You could easily be turned into your fursona if you simply had DNA of the animal your fursona is based on. With the set animal DNA used as a base, other things can be mixed into the code later to change the physical appearance. Combination with a bit of your human DNA would be fine, the best source for DNA would be your blood. This would give the anthropomophic anatomy, like the ability to stand on two legs and talk. Obviously, clothes aren't going to be created through genetics as the final result, since you don't have clothes in your blood, animals don't wear clothes, and it's not as simple as taking your underwear and throwing it in a scanner. As for furry children, this is entirely dependent on who yor wife is. Let's assume most of your cells and hormones are intact, so you still have your reproductive organs during the cell merging, when you finally become anthropomophic. If your wife is human, the children will end up being anthropomophic, and never all human. Why? Anthropomorphic animals, if anything, are a fusion of man and animal. Your kids are likely to be anthropomophic due to the human DNA already being present in them, so there's no need to add human DNA, so genetic code focuses on adding animal DNA, adding what the wife doesn't have, effectively making them anthro. If your wife is also anthro, it's obvious that the baby will be anthropomophic. The baby won't be perfect, heck you won't be perfect once you're anthro. There's too much of a conflict between your human and animal DNA that you and your baby might be quite vulnerable to diseases. However, if enough animal DNA is present in the baby, or if enogh human DNA is in the bay, it will turn out perfect, due to more DNA being present, making that DNA high priority and avoiding further conflict within their body, bascally saying "I make up more of the body's DNA, listen to me first".
As for being my fursona, yes I would.
I also would have an anthro baby.
-
Also it could still be in our lifetime :P
Considering that pills that extent your life span by about an extra 100 years are going to be in our lifetime :P
-
Talos,
you could also use DNA computers and artificial Cyborg DNA (already actually made) so that DNA is modifiable real time. However, with the kids thing, I don't think it's like that.
It's whether being an Anthro is comprised mainly of recessive or dominant genes. You don't get half a chromosome, instead each chromosome is given a pair, if a particular trait, such as growing fur, was a dominant gene than your child has a 75% chance to grow fur. On the other hand, if an animal like eye was recessive, you would have a child that only has 25% chance to get an animal eye. You could have a strange mutation of animal and human, with some animal characteristics and some human characteristics, not neatly blended however.
If your wife had the same anthro chromosomes as you, your children will be 100% anthro.
-
That and this is ignoring the fact that changing a any of a large number of genes can result in fatal abnormalities. Unofrtunately genertic engineering in the form of cross-species modification is a long way off, and a great many will die before it is finished.
Thus why I said I wasnt into genetic engineering to that extent xD Modified all-human DNA Gene therapy treatments are brilliant IMO, but I just dont see us managing much beyond that in this generation simply due to the infinite number of variables.
-
Ah, I see what you mean. Such an interesting discussion.
-
That and this is ignoring the fact that changing a any of a large number of genes can result in fatal abnormalities. Unofrtunately genertic engineering in the form of cross-species modification is a long way off, and a great many will die before it is finished.
Thus why I said I wasnt into genetic engineering to that extent xD Modified all-human DNA Gene therapy treatments are brilliant IMO, but I just dont see us managing much beyond that in this generation simply due to the infinite number of variables.
As I said, through the process of "Cyborg DNA" which is artificial DNA, DNA becomes controllable on the fly! So if an abnormality happens, it can actually be reversed! :P
Now only that, they are working on a technology to turn human nerves into optical fibres, pretty much our normal nerves move at about 40m/s. Imagine them moving at 300,000,000m/s :P
-
Stronger and faster nerves....wouldn't that increase your reflexes and reaction time?
-
increaseing reaction time........ I hope that is expenive because the last thing we need is more noobs cheating on call of duty.
(I made a funny.)
Post Merge: June 07, 2012, 11:17:38 AM
Increaseing reaction time...... I hope its expenive, because the last thing we need is more noobs cheating on call of duty.
(I made a funny.)
-
Not only would it increase reaction time, but it would actually make you more intelligent. You can handle more calculations a second, so lets say currently it took you 5 seconds to figure out a math equation. If we had optical fibers, we could do that same math question in roughly 666 nano-seconds, I think, it's probably not as simple as that. But then problems could arise that your body simply wouldn't be able to keep up with your new speed.
You might be expecting to open a jar of peanut butter, grab some bread, put peanut butter on bread, put bread together, put peanut in the cupboard and clean up. You expect to all those things and you THINK you have already done those things, but in truth you are still reaching for the peanut butter.
-
Would certainly make cybernetic enhancements easier to envision.
But even then that's assuming that the process would be available-
I dont doubt such surgical options would come with immense risk and expense.
-
Yeah, but as I keep saying cyborg DNA :P
It's pretty much DNA code that has code in it to edit DNA code and it's really easy to modify too :P
It's what they believe is going to be the best way to modify DNA :P
-
You can't just insert genes into yourself and expect to turn into your fursona, you'd have to ensure your every cell received the genes at first and tehn what you get is a human... with animal genes, not your fursona.
Instead, I'll combine becoming my fursona with immortality and skip genetic engineering a body, and just go for bioprinting. I can then get a brain transplant into my newly printed body and reap the benefits of both it and immortality. Whileit would remain genetically human, the body plan can be my fursona and it would remain that way.
-
Again, cyborg DNA
It's DNA that gets other DNA to do things you want it to do.
Now, DNA releases chemicals that tell your cells what to do, I guess, perhaps you could create a virus if the cyborg DNA didn't work :P
-
Again, cyborg DNA
It's DNA that gets other DNA to do things you want it to do.
Now, DNA releases chemicals that tell your cells what to do, I guess, perhaps you could create a virus if the cyborg DNA didn't work :P
Yeah, but that doesn't change the issue that your still a human, just with different DNA. Changing your DNA doesn't modify the body structure, just the chemicals your cells produce.
-
Again, cyborg DNA
It's DNA that gets other DNA to do things you want it to do.
Now, DNA releases chemicals that tell your cells what to do, I guess, perhaps you could create a virus if the cyborg DNA didn't work :P
Yeah, but that doesn't change the issue that your still a human, just with different DNA. Changing your DNA doesn't modify the body structure, just the chemicals your cells produce.
it has some effect on the children you are going to get. If you want a furry as child :P
-
Germ-line engineering is different from genetic engineering to change your appearance however. But yeah, you could have furry kids... but problems are encountered when you try to have reptile kids...
-
Well, I think you could actually change yourself into your fursona, but the implications would be... unpleasant.
Would include vast mutations to every strand of DNA, complete cell replacement with the new DNA, you'd have to destroy your own body to recreate it, like a caterpillar to a butterfly.
-
Well, I think you could actually change yourself into your fursona, but the implications would be... unpleasant.
Would include vast mutations to every strand of DNA, complete cell replacement with the new DNA, you'd have to destroy your own body to recreate it, like a caterpillar to a butterfly.
I don't think that you can still say that you are that person from before.
you look different and you have other DNA (so far as I know DNA can also affect the behavior of a human.).
-
Might still have the same brain though,
-
You could just print out a body with the gens you desires in the shape you desire, and then transplant your brain into said body with a couple prosthetics to prevent rejection by the immune system (or maybe an artificial immune system?)
-
Then you could also improve the body much easier too :P
Cybernetic implants, improve where nature has left on :P
I like that idea
-
Then you could also improve the body much easier too :P
Cybernetic implants, improve where nature has left on :P
I like that idea
Its something I'm taking on as a job, starting with a normal human bodies for others and then I shall have the first cross-species transplant. Brain transplants are the secret to immortality, so I could probably easily pay for the procedure. I shall be a pioneer! :D
-
Bodies aren't the only thing that decompose over time, brains have their fair share of decomposition.
Actually, interestingly enough, there is a gene that actual controls aging. I'm not even kidding here...
If you control that gene you can actually stay youthful for much longer, you can even reverse cycles like the immortal jellyfish and then you can literally live for ever (as long as you don't get diseases or anything)
-
Brains pretty much decompose with the body they're in, so immortality yeah! Not to mention what effect stem cells could have on such an operation.
-
I don't think that's true...
The neurons do have some form of regeneration, they are still of quite a limited source. They can't regenerate and heal themselves, so if a brain cell dies, it dies, and there's very little you can do to replace it. I guess if you supplied the brain cell a consistent supply of energy in a completely sterile environment, you would live forever, but a body couldn't really do that for you, even a cybernetic body with motor functions could have problems with the brain, perhaps collision or just general movement destroys the brain partially, for a long time, eventually causing significant loss.
-
In actuality a human can live forever, there is no true upper limit on lifespan besides wear and tear, and the brain does not accrue such wear and tear except throuh the tissue degeneration of the rest of the body. By transferring the brain it can heal up a bit and give you another 30-40 years of life per switch.
-
Where's your evidence for such a claim?
Here is explaining how Neurons have limited replication: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/99/0405/brain.htm (http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/99/0405/brain.htm)
Psychological report explaining how the brain ages: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-food/201105/how-do-brains-age (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-brain-food/201105/how-do-brains-age)
(notice that the reproduction of cells happens primarily in the hippocampus, which shrinks as you age. I am taking an uneducated guess to suggest that as you age the amount of cell growth declines exponentially to time)
There's a lot of things to take into account
Also, being immortal has it's catastrophic effect of sensory deprivation, you get used to things, everything. Nothing seems to really... do anything for you, excite you, seem new, interesting, allow a good sensory input. You may get used to your bodies reward mechanisms of feel good hormones, might even get used to pain. You'd just eventually become a shell, rid of all kind of sensory input.
-
I'm not sure where you get that "become a shell" bit from. If anything, I require more and more sensory input as time goes on, but that could just be me being Aspie. I dunno. As for brain aging, consider uploading your mind then perhaps? A hippocampus prosthetic is already being developed, already in FDA animal testing! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampal_prosthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampal_prosthesis) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3488-worlds-first-brain-prosthesis-revealed.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3488-worlds-first-brain-prosthesis-revealed.html) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6574-brain-prosthesis-passes-live-tissue-test.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6574-brain-prosthesis-passes-live-tissue-test.html)
But as for how personality changes over time (i'm just guessing that psychological report is strictly psychological, not neurological) that has nothing to do with immortality.
Immortality does not include sensory deprivation, and if you really wanted to stimulate yourself you could go and do something, or if your an upload, simulate stimulation. You could simulate stimulation perfectly, and that would only be necessary for uploads that are just human brains in a computer. Why be that, when you could far exceed the capabilities and limitations of the brain?
-
i think our best bet, is to find a way to go through a state of metamorphosis similar to that of a butterfly.
you would eventually regret immortality
-
I certainly won't regret. I make the cheap and dirty way first (the brain transplants) and then we move on to mind uploading... when a person can inhabit all areas of a city at once...
-
what happens when you get bored and everything has died but you??
-
By that time I should be at least a planet, so I just start from scratch. Make a new species to "play" with, raise them to transhuman levels and pretty much do whatever you want with power considered godlike by modern standards.
-
but how would you deal with the end of the universe?
-
If the universe ever does end, then what do I have to fear? If not, again, what would I have to fear? there is nothing to fear there.
-
I'm not sure where you get that "become a shell" bit from. If anything, I require more and more sensory input as time goes on, but that could just be me being Aspie. I dunno. As for brain aging, consider uploading your mind then perhaps? A hippocampus prosthetic is already being developed, already in FDA animal testing! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampal_prosthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampal_prosthesis) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3488-worlds-first-brain-prosthesis-revealed.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3488-worlds-first-brain-prosthesis-revealed.html) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6574-brain-prosthesis-passes-live-tissue-test.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6574-brain-prosthesis-passes-live-tissue-test.html)
But as for how personality changes over time (i'm just guessing that psychological report is strictly psychological, not neurological) that has nothing to do with immortality.
Immortality does not include sensory deprivation, and if you really wanted to stimulate yourself you could go and do something, or if your an upload, simulate stimulation. You could simulate stimulation perfectly, and that would only be necessary for uploads that are just human brains in a computer. Why be that, when you could far exceed the capabilities and limitations of the brain?
Well, you can join me and at least 3 other furs here for the aspergers XD
1. Psychology is applied neurology, sir, to think that psychology and neurology are unrelated is incorrect
2. I do not consider growing new brains evidence for brains being immortal/only dying because the body dies. Evidence for brain transplants also does not state evidence of the brain being immortal/only dying because the body dies either.
3. Think of it this way, you get a lollypop, it's great the first time, try a lollipop a second time, it's still good, try it a third time, it's not as good, try it a fourth time, still not as good. The stimuli doesn't change, it's just your interpretation of the stimuli.
It can be explained by theory of relativity, to truly get the value of something we need to compare that thing to something else. We compare most things to ourselves for physical differences, oh look that elephant is big, because it's big to us. To a planet, the elephant is small, etc, to really get the true measurement or data of an object, we need to compare it to other things. So how sensory input come into this? Think of it as a graph of standard deviation, to put it in an easy example, if you always are surrounded by good things, you begin to compare. You only have good things to compare to though, so you can only say that these good things are "ok" because to you their true worth isn't very amazing because you are comparing them to everything else in your life, which was good. Good things seem less good, bad things seem more bad.
Have a burger at mcdonalds, doesn't seem so fantastic to you, because you always have burgers at mcdonalds or you have better food, you are comparing the burger to your normal food and it's not fantastic. A homeless person though would think the burger was amazing! Because his comparisons are much less than a burger. To think of it mathematically, it's a global derivative of a graph (y axis happiness, x axis time), it's only a sign on the gradient, which if you are always happy, will be straight. But what if you keep going from happy to sad? The derivitive of that would be all over the place and would never be straight. But then we start to ask, well, sometimes you get used to constant change (ie, the second derivitive may be straight). If you notice someone who has a very static life, is not used to change and will react more severely to someone who's life is always changing. It keeps on going, eventually, you get used to everything, any pattern of your emotional life becomes boring, useless. Nothing becomes interesting.
Remember, if your immortal, you have the chance to do everything feasible.
-
Don't forget that we get thousands of different stimuli a second, and we can even imagine different stimuli providing a comparison. Immortality isn't endless tasting of a lolipop, its just like living to 122... and later still... and on and on and on. Just life, with no end.
EDIT: As for psychology and neurology, those are different fields. Psychology is how the mind works, neurology is how the brain works. While related, they aren't the same.
-
Yes, but again it's relativity.
You may be receiving thousands of different stimuli a second, but let me ask you really, do you really think that it's amazing that you are getting thousands of different stimuli a second? I don't, to me I consider it quite normal, not really interesting. Staring at a wall I get thousands of different stimuli a second, light reflecting off the walls into my retina's, sound vibrating through the air, smell, taste, touch. But starring at a wall just isn't interesting.
When you are 122 you probably would have a slight dulling of senses or how those senses apply to you. This is due to organ malfunction, but I am very sure it is also due to the dulling effect of repeated stimuli and comparing those stimuli. Though the effect of the latter is small, living to a 1,000 it becomes noticeable, living to 100,000 it becomes very significant.
Also, to understand really understand how the mind works, you need to understand how the brain works. (Yes, that's reductionism)
-
What I'm saying is you get thousands of different simuli a second, and then the scale is increased when you go by years. Upload your mind and sensory deprivation is a non issue, because you could just change the way your mind functions to be more efficient.
I'm just saying I don't believe immortality comes with sensory deprivation, and if anything, youd have even more sensory stimulation than ever, as who wouldn't add senses to their body? In fact, this has already been done to a limited degree using magnets. [size=78%]http://hplusmagazine.com/2009/09/10/my-new-sense-organ/ (http://hplusmagazine.com/2009/09/10/my-new-sense-organ/)[/size]
-
The problem isn't the amount, the problem is the variety
Again, if you eat a lollipop 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, you could say that was 10,000,000,000,000,000 senses, but it's not interesting. So you receive 1,000 senses a second, trillions a year, but that they are not all completely different stimuli, soon you begin repeating the same stimuli, soon things become less interesting.
Also, as an infinite amount of time goes on, you can create your own senses sure, if you can edit your brain then sure. But what I'm saying is currently how the body works, immortality won't work, but obviously there is an infinite amount of possibilities that could lead otherwise. I'm just saying from what we know about the body and mind now :P
-
Well we certainly won't be keeping our bodies the same way in the future. In the future, it could even become a prosthetics arm race to become the most intelligent or most capable of learning.
-
I could just as easily say World War 3 happens and we're set back to the stone age before that happens :P
-
Then lets create an archive of technology and knowledge so that we can become immortal before or after stone age reset. I see that as unlikely though, it would mean somebody would have to be very, very suicidal to kill his entire country. Or genocidal.
-
Actually not necessarily! :D
See, if say Pakistan and India go out in nuclear war, they both believe they have counters and somehow deflect the nuclear bombs to a space of land (or simply get nuked and destroyed) the amount of dust that would fly into the atmosphere would be enough to actually thicken the atmosphere reducing global temperature. Even a local conflict is felt globally.
Still, I think we're going off-topic, so lets ask a question.
What about the risk that genetic engineering is used for war?
-
Then genetic engineering would be used to counter it. Fight fire with fire, after all.
-
What about the risk that genetic engineering is used for war?
makes me think about in the hunger games, they say that they genetically modified animals into weapons, such as wasps that have bodies of solid, natural gold and injects a poison that causes hysteria, psychosis and hallucinations among other symptoms not excluding death.
and they breed.
-
Yes, but it's not as easy as that.
To do genetic engineering, you need money.
People seem to invest a hell of a lot more into war than anything else... so... XD
-
Easiest genetic weapon is a virus or pathogenic bacterium
-
agreed
i bet variations of the flu are made to slowly kill out the population "naturally" :o
just blame it on the mexicans and you're sorted
-
Unit 731,
Biological research center.
God what they did was horrible, the data was used to create many antibiotics and medication. But after seeing that, after knowing what they did to get there. I wonder whether it was really worth it.
-
look up plumb island
-
Tragedies must occur to save the masses. A sad truth that can be made obsolete with extremely accurate simulations, but then its just the same stuff, but to a virtual one.
-
Yes, but what masses are we truly saving?
Those who are greedy enough to cause severe torture on those less fortunate?
It no longer becomes "sacrifice 100 to save 100,000" it becomes "Sacrifice 100,000 poor people to save 100 rich people"
-
But look at how that's gone on to become millions being saved by the tech, if not billions. Eitherway, lets just simulate it in the future so it becomes unecessary to conduct the tests on real subjects.
-
Well I'm not entirely sure if the results from Unit 731 saved billions...
But yeah, simulations would be good. Just hard to make XD
-
Not really all that hard. Once you can upload your brain, it should be trivial to simulate such a thing.
-
But there's so much more, you can make inaccurate examples, but if you wanted to most accurate, you'd need to simulate the universe. To simulate the universe, you need to understand the universe and have the power to do so.
Also, you sound as if you think uploading the brain in itself is trivial o.o
-
Kinda is. You either gradually replace the frontal lobes into one lobe, or you essentially add computers as a second hemisphere and get an extreme lobotomy, but that needs research as to whether split brain people become two poeple in one body or not.
-
err... the problem isn't "what part does what" it's, how it does it.
Classical computers run through a binary, one input calculation system. Only one input a second and there's only two possible inputs, easy.
Brains however, use chemical neuro-transmitters through millions of interconnected [newly forming] synapses that reach a multitude of brain cells, at the same time. Multiple calculations happening at the same time. Folded in such a way that these calculations are translated into something we can comprehend in a process we still don't truly understand.
We'd need to invent chemical computers if we wanted to realistically simulate the brain, even then it would be amazingly difficult.
-
Brains are turing equivelant, so not really. Ones and zeroes can easily simulate the 4 neurotransmitters. Furhtermore, while quantum computers still have to use ones and zeroes, they also use any number INBETWEEN one and zero, meaning they can do far more than the neurtransmitters with a single bit.
-
Also, quantum computing isn't just that too :P
As an atomic object can be in two states at the same time, a qubit can be a 1 and a 0, which, is just one atom so there is no superposition between.
Then you get to two qubits, which can be 00 an 01 and 10 and 11, BUT it can also be every possible superposition between the two qubits :P
-
My mind went blank 3 pages ago...(gets icepack)...Ow..
See, we know the complete modification of a human's genetic code to make them their fursona is possible, the question is: Will this be done in the near future? I doubt it. Just like Anoni said, we're too busy making a buttload of nuclear weapons to focus on anything else. Development is slow and economy doesn't help. In around the 1800s, people have been dreaming about flying cars, which eveyone will have and use. It's 2012 now, and those people just kept on dreamin', because flying cars have never been naturalized yet. There's some prototypes, though. But that's the thing. They're PROTOTYPES. Technoogy development has been slow, so heavy genetic modification probably won't be until the late 2100s, maybe longer.
-
Highly unlikely that genetic engineering technology will be delayed so much.
I feel a bit ignored, because I must state this quite clearly, Genetic Engineering will not magically turn you into your fursona. Genes don't work that way.
It becomes really annoying to see this keep getting spread. Genes only work by making chemicals, and those chemical your genes make are most important to how you look when you were born. Let me give you an example. A blond person walks into the local stylist and wants her hair dyed. Now she looks like a brunette like she always wanted. Another blond goes to her doctors to become genetically modified. She says she wants blue eyes and dark hair. She gets the genes, but she wasn't born with the hair color she wants. So all that happens is she has some new genes. She looks and is exactly the same.
That should give the idea of how genetic engineering works. Another example: A cow is born with 6 legs, so they genetically engineer it when its an adult to have normal cow genes. Do the extra legs magically vanish? Of course not.
The easiest way to become your fursona is a fursuit. The second easiest is plastic surgery. The third easiest, and I expect will be the most popular of them, is plastic surgery and grafting.
Grafting animal parts to you allows you to keep all the benefits of a human digestive system and brain while giving the appearance of your fursona. Some cybernetics to link up your new nose and ears to your brain so you can feel and experience the use of the senses of your fursona. The grafts could even be cybernetic themselves as opposed to biological.
Now, the hardest way to become your fursona is also the most complete and total way of becoming it: Brain transplants. You need to print out a new body that has been genetically engineered or just human cells, and then they make the bones, the muscles, every part of it must be printed. Then, you have to get your skull split open and your brain and possibly the spinal cord removed to be inserted into this new body. Then you spend the months in physical therapy to adapt to your new body and prepare to re-integrate into society. You also have to buy all sorts of new ergonomically designed furniture, (Hey, I made a pun!) appliances, and not to mention mouse and keyboard so you can continue posting on this forum.
That fourth method also leads to immortality as it allows the brain to regenerate to what extent it can due to the new body not having all the tissue degenration of the new one, which should add about 40-60ish years to lifespan per brain transplant.
But the simple thing is, genetic engineering does not make you an anthro, maybe your kids, but you will not just magically see your bones start shifting. One movie that showed what such a transformation would be like is The Fly. It would not be a clean and painless transformation if it did work like that at all. That is all a great big misconception.
Genes are not blueprints to a body, they are the building blocks to one. Sometimes those blocks get put together wrong and that's called a mutation. But the thing is, changing the blocks doesn't change the structure it builds up.
So I hope this clears up misconceptions. A mild rant, yes, but I think it's necessary to remove misconceptions because those just lead to ignorance, a major impediment to progress when it infects authorities.
-
Could we perhaps take into account the impending development of the quantum computer.
This would probably cause advancement in research and technology.
-
Still, I honestly don't think genetic engineering will really take place in our lifetime or it will, but when it does it will be too expensive to buy at our age. I unfortunately don't think we'd be able to do serious genetic engineering for another 100 or so years. Then again, technology has surprised us before... (People thinking that in the year 2000 computers would be 4x faster and 3x smaller. They turned out to be 1,000,000x faster and 100x smaller)
What do you think? Do you think real, advanced, genetic engineering will come in our time and that we'd be able to afford it?
-
I say there is a chance it becomes available, yet it would be far to expensive to imagine it.
Also would be incredibly risky and based mostly on theory.
-
Human Genome processing becomes cheaper and cheaper everyday, geneti engineering sees widespread industrial use. Its just a matter of year(s) (Most definitely under a decade) before we see it as a widespread thing.
In fact, It already is becoming something to do at home. The gear costs a lot currently, but it too grows cheaper and cheaper. More and more people are gaining power over cells that they can design. We're on the transhuman pathway.
-
I mean genetic engineering of actual humankind, in terms of the brain in particular. Like completely compatible BCI's and stuff like that :P
-
Indie ene companies have already started on that. Its why we have gene therapy technology for diseases like Cystic fibrosis. Now we just need designer babies to eliminate that harmful mutation.
-
So far the farthest we've ever done is allow a women to control robot arm, through her mind. I must mention however, the control, was quite significantly limited and it was very laggy. There also isn't too much funding in the area of study, so I stand by my previous point.
-
Deus Ex: The Eyeborg Documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW78wbN-WuU#ws)
Very useful documentary
ANyways, we are already working on an artificial hippocampus as I said earlier, so we're getting really close to the singularity.
-
Of course, with genetic engineering, there are always going to be those religious nuts that try to stop it, and probably succeed. I'm honestly doubtful that being able to become your fursona will ever happen, but if it does, awesome. One can hope.
(@ anoni: I'm an aspie too. *high fives*)
-
Well, actually, I have learned quite a lot coming to this thread :P
In terms of genetic engineering and such. I still have extreme skepticism on the time which we will get Genetic Engineering. Like, it will happen, but it's the same as a quantum computer. We have all these "ideas" and all these concepts that could theoretically work, but there is little practice. A lot of it is "in development" but very few of it is "developed". With the quantum computer, we've managed to get a world record of 12 qubits, which is quite a lot, but it's no where near enough for quantum computers to be of practical design. I think genetic engineering works on the same premise, we are getting there, we have done some interesting things and we have planned for even more interesting things, but I don't think those interesting things are going to happen yet, or even in the next decade.
You might ask me why I believe this will happen. Well, you have to think about a few more things than the actual science itself, though that's the easiest to come up with, so it's the easiest start with.
Technology: We have already started doing a lot of things, starting isn't the hard part of a project though. I can start right now to get try and build a rocket to mars but it in no way means that I'll be designing a rocket to mars anytime soon. Obviously, that's a bit of an extreme example, but the premise still stays alive. The idea is you can't get too excited about what people are starting, what people are possibly developing. There are often problems that are not foreseen, problems that can delay and post-pone development or even stop it. It happens a lot of the time, in many different projects, in many different fields, neuroscience being no exception I am sure. Though they may get it done, I am suggesting that we can't jump to conclusions, we can't make predictions on things we don't completely understand, we don't know the method they are using to develop these new technologies, so I don't think we can just assume it will happen recently. Anything is possible of course, but I am saying that the probabilities of these technologies coming into place, within the decade, are quite slim, just from evidence of other technologies and usual projects that happen that aren't backed up by large, multi-billion dollar companies with deadlines.
Finance: So what makes the multi-billion dollar companies with deadlines any different from the universities and science firms that develop these technologies? The simple fact is finance. Science isn't a considerably financed industry these days, people are (unfortunate) losing interest in science, in the western communities anyway. The eastern regions are where most of the science is coming from these days, areas like India, China and Japan, however, these organizations are still not considerably funded compared to other organizations within these countries. Another thing to say is that with big companies, they have deadlines, they are releasing their product entirely, or mostly, for the money, thus they will take a lot of care with their deadlines, because if they miss a deadline, they lose money. Scientists on the other hand, are not so concerned with money, they are also working in entirely unpredictable fields, so making deadlines would be unfeasible, with no deadlines, they can go as slow as they want and there is no serious rush to get technology down. Science is not as a competitive industry as most business industries, not to say it is not competitive however. So with these, with a lack of large financial commitment and the lack or need of deadlines, the science industry is generally slower and more unpredictable than most other industries.
Social and Ethical Issues: Why I hate to go over this subject, we have to keep in mind that societies needs is driven by people and why we may not believe that there is anything wrong with cyber technology, that is not to say that there are a heck of a lot of people that DO think there is something wrong. As a majority of the world believes in some sort of religion, a majority of religions believing in some sort of soul, there can be a lot of social and ethical issues with this kind of technology. These people may disagree with what these artificial intelligences do, they may fight against it. I don't think this issue will stop the process, but it will hinder the process and maybe, depending on what kind of technologies, may hinder the process significantly. A government is not going to fund something that a majority of society does not want, we just have to hope that a majority of society wants what's good for it.
As I say, I do know something like this will happen, I am just convinced it won't happen for at least another 30 years. Definitely when we are middle aged. It's not something that will be happening "soon" relatively to other technologies.
-
This is a very interesting thread although i really only looked at it because of the fallout reference "fawkes" but it turned out to be very interesting and it would be very fun to become my fursona but i doubt it will ever happen.
-
It will happen but not because of genetic engineering. Please read my above post.
@Anoni
Technology: we have the technology to do many things, even mind uploading. Thing is, though, that the thing preventing widespread use is the knowledge has yet to be learned. This will happen in time.
Finance: immortality is a very attractive concept, and I highly doubt that too few wealthy businessmen will buy new bodies to become immortal. Finance is currently a non-issue.
Ethics/Morality: the arguments against any form of transhumanism has been irrational and unacceptable, and needs to be campaigned against. But, this is also the hardest fight to win, because people will accept namecalling and rationalization as rational. Thing is, the majority of people will desire transhuman technologies and this muddled ethics debate will end.
I'm just saying it's coming no matter what, at least other than any existential risks.
-
Hmmmm ok. well it will be interesting when it happens.
-
Furthermore, it should happen within your expected lifetime.
-
Sounds fun. hmmmm super soldier furries.
-
It will happen but not because of genetic engineering. Please read my above post.
@Anoni
Technology: we have the technology to do many things, even mind uploading. Thing is, though, that the thing preventing widespread use is the knowledge has yet to be learned. This will happen in time.
Finance: immortality is a very attractive concept, and I highly doubt that too few wealthy businessmen will buy new bodies to become immortal. Finance is currently a non-issue.
Ethics/Morality: the arguments against any form of transhumanism has been irrational and unacceptable, and needs to be campaigned against. But, this is also the hardest fight to win, because people will accept namecalling and rationalization as rational. Thing is, the majority of people will desire transhuman technologies and this muddled ethics debate will end.
I'm just saying it's coming no matter what, at least other than any existential risks.
Technology: I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't think we have a computer capable of the computational capabilities to process the human mind and even knowledge is important. If we did not have the knowledge of something, how do we know our technology is capable of achieving it?
Finance: Wealthy business men maybe would like immortality. But for that to happen, it would be quite a large investment and their would need to be some serious evidence to suggest that it would work for wealthy business men to actually invest as much that is required for such an agency.
Social/Ethics: I'm not too certain about that. There is still racism, homophobia, discrimination, supernatural belief, belief in ghosts and other things. Irrationality seems to be a trait of mankind.
-
Technology: Yeah, we have the capability to simulate a human brain, its just that it would take an extremely large computer to do so currently. Being able to make electronics interact with neurons, we can replace neurons with chips and make the brain a computer. Thing is, we don't know enough about the brain to make this a simple or easy process.
Finance: Business men will invest, because even if the process to do so is not known, the immortality factor is very desirable. Thing is, I know the way to immortality, the whole brain transplant thing, so it'll be fairly easy enough.
Ethics: More and more people are opening up to transhumanism. Thing with transhumanism is that its just the New Rock and Roll (http://)
-
Technology: I don't see how that's a plus on your argument XD
Finance: Yes, Immortality is very desirable, but people don't invest on things, even if it's immortality, unless they are confident it will work.
Ethics: But is the process fast enough?
Again, I'm not saying it won't be done, I'm just saying that it won't be done for at least another 30 years
-
30 years is more of an at most. it is more likely it will be at least 5 years to start with designer babies, 12 years for sufficient gene therapy, and 15 years for immortality. Double those and that should be the maximum amount of time for those to crop up.
One thing to remember is The Law of Accelerating Returns, which states that technology advances on at least a quadratic scale. That means your estimate of least time is just far too big.
-
I see technology as not an infinite exponential process, but a process similar to where there is a peak of rate increase that slowly descends after that, though we haven't reached the peak yet.
Well, I believe we are at kind of stalemate here, because I believe that both our claims are equally valid, the problem with predicting the future is there is so little you can actually grasp things on. We don't exactly have sufficient statistical data to accurately predict much of anything in terms of this regard. So, I think we have to end of this discussion like this.
We'll see what happens :P
-
I suppose your right.
As for predicting the future, its really hard because we're on the verge of another technological singularity, the point where it becomes near impossible to predict the exact details of what happens next.
Also because of that, it means any science fiction set past 2030-2040 is pure Space opera now if it doesn't include any large-scale transhumanism.
-
hehe :P
Some do, like Mass Effect, though the scale on it was not large in terms of AI's and mental uploading due to legal limitations of that era :P
-
Wow this discussion is awesome although I not really contributing. It's still fun to read and the mass effect series is awesome but I don't think we wil be seeing mass relays but we might.
-
Well on that note, we may actually be able to travel to other galaxies instantly! As in, FTL, it's actually pretty amazing. This MAY be achievable in the form of teleportation and the use of Quantum Entanglement.
The idea is that when two particles interact, they become quantum entangled, which means that the properties of one particle are dependent on the properties of the other particle and vice versa. If they are not disturbed, they can remain in this tangled state and be moved apart, the particles could be hundreds of miles apart. As the properties of one particle are dependent on the other, if one particles property changes (such as it's spin) the other particles property will change instantly in the appropriate format (the other particle would spin in the opposite direction). The idea here is that the speed in which the two properties change is instant, faster than the speed of life.
So if we could theoretically discover how to use this practically, then instant teleportation may be a very real possibility!
-
Don't forget about the Alcubierre drive!
The idea of warping space around your ship to transport it faster than light by transporting space alongside the ship.
To paraphrase someone, "Einstein said we can't move faster than light on the stage. But, he didn't say anything about moving the stage faster than light..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)
-
Teleportation scares me :P
In my view it's like copy-pasting on a computer then deleting the original.
Until we can be certain how the human conscience works, I aint goin in no telly-portation device.
Portals however...
Damn if I was loaded with cash, I would put so much into research and development of genetics and interstellar travel
-
That's just Star Trek teleportation, real teleportation is just instant transfer of an object to another place. IIRC, we have already done it to a single photon.
-
Particles zip in and out of our perceptions of existence all the time :P
It's really quite freaky to think about :P
-
look up graphine
harder than diamond,
most conductive substance we know of
only an atom thick though is visible
has amazing light bending properties
we, ladies and gentlemen, are about to enter the graphine age
when this stuff goes mass production, who knows what will happen :P
fun fact: it's already been used to make invisible missiles
-
What does any of this have to do with genetic engineering? xD We seem to have corrupted the original topic and made a physics thread.
-
i fail to see your point
*slaps you with a wet trout*
on point though, anyone hear about the guy who is mapping human DNA?
-
We've essentially changed the topic from genetic engineering to future technology.
Back to the topic, designer babies anyone?
-
well.. with enough research using stem cells any feat is possible.from designer babies to the creation of new species.
-
I would LIKE it, but in the end of the day it wouldn't be your natural self. If it is to ever get to the point where they CAN do that, I'm not sure I actually would. Simply because of the risks of problems, such a dramatic cchange it would be, and under the fur everything would be un-natural. But yeah I'd like to, just sounds like there would be strings attached, and of course how un-natural it would be.
-
it wouldnt be availiable to the public unless everything was in check and safe with no "strings attached" otherwise no one would participate, let alone research genetic engineering. ^_^
-
I would LIKE it, but in the end of the day it wouldn't be your natural self. If it is to ever get to the point where they CAN do that, I'm not sure I actually would. Simply because of the risks of problems, such a dramatic cchange it would be, and under the fur everything would be un-natural. But yeah I'd like to, just sounds like there would be strings attached, and of course how un-natural it would be.
Natural fallacy
Everything "natural" isn't necessarily better than anything synthetic, for instance, snake bites are natural, hurricanes and tornadoes are natural, extinction events are natural, etc.
Some non "natural" things are housing, internet, dogs, medicine, antivenin, defibrillators, etc.
-
Yes, but I don't see it ever happening, churches will knock it down in a heartbeat and one really can't justify the research for the better good, so... I'll try magic someday
-
I thin that genetic engineering is definitely a complicated issue Manipulating a genetic code is extremely complicated and expensive, and if only the rich get to perfect their offspring, or even themselves, it will only add to the hierarchical, consumerist society we already live in. I understand that not all rich people have sinister ulterior motives, but it has been proven time and time again that there are people seeking power only to abuse it.
Genetic engineering is a science, and science takes a lot of time to understand and develop, but thankfully we have come a long way from using leeches to cure migraines. A genetic code is very complex. It is the basic fiber of our being. If someone splices the wrong gene or makes even the slightest mistake, it could mean the death of someone, possibly a small child, a loss of a job, a moral uproar and millions of dollars wasted. We don't need any more research facilities and abortion clinics being set on fire.
It's because of all this that it should be a very long time before I would ever consensually let someone turn me into a fox. I want them to be able to do it in their sleep.
-
I would LIKE it, but in the end of the day it wouldn't be your natural self. If it is to ever get to the point where they CAN do that, I'm not sure I actually would. Simply because of the risks of problems, such a dramatic cchange it would be, and under the fur everything would be un-natural. But yeah I'd like to, just sounds like there would be strings attached, and of course how un-natural it would be.
Natural fallacy
Everything "natural" isn't necessarily better than anything synthetic, for instance, snake bites are natural, hurricanes and tornadoes are natural, extinction events are natural, etc.
Some non "natural" things are housing, internet, dogs, medicine, antivenin, defibrillators, etc.
To be honest, I don't even like the world "natural" because what does it even mean? A Desk top computer is natural, it is made by natural beings (humans) who used natural material (silicon/other material) in a natural way (physical phenomena). A computer, which we deem synthetic, is just a bunch of natural phenomena mixed together; much like sand or life. In my opinion, nature and synthetic are the same thing technically.
-
well. i must agree with that.. the world makes us what we are. it is after all the enviornment that shaped us. so it makes sense that we too shape the enviornment. and as always we are in our own way stopping ourselves and prevent any change, the only thing that never chamges is that everything must change. ^_^ genetic engineeri g is just the speeding up of change, or inducing it with minor manipulations.
-
Honestly, if genetic engineering could turn me into my fursona I would want them too. But I'm also a therian. I would run away and live in a cabin in the woods and never speak to anyone other than my wife. But I have a purpose here. I'm a human for a reason, and I have to fulfill what I was put here to do, which is to be a psychologist and an animal therapist ^_^
-
yup. well no one should fear the uknown . we should be used to it by now considering that change has been with us since the beginning. it wouldnt harm anyone to participate in research and progress. essentially i'm saying huah!
-
I would LIKE it, but in the end of the day it wouldn't be your natural self. If it is to ever get to the point where they CAN do that, I'm not sure I actually would. Simply because of the risks of problems, such a dramatic cchange it would be, and under the fur everything would be un-natural. But yeah I'd like to, just sounds like there would be strings attached, and of course how un-natural it would be.
Natural fallacy
Everything "natural" isn't necessarily better than anything synthetic, for instance, snake bites are natural, hurricanes and tornadoes are natural, extinction events are natural, etc.
Some non "natural" things are housing, internet, dogs, medicine, antivenin, defibrillators, etc.
To be honest, I don't even like the world "natural" because what does it even mean? A Desk top computer is natural, it is made by natural beings (humans) who used natural material (silicon/other material) in a natural way (physical phenomena). A computer, which we deem synthetic, is just a bunch of natural phenomena mixed together; much like sand or life. In my opinion, nature and synthetic are the same thing technically.
Precisely.