Genetics Vs. Cybernetics Vs. Normal

Ivan

For some reason whenever I start a thread on this board I always begin with "I'm not sure if this is the right board but..." and I see no reason to not say it now.

I'm not sure if this is the right board but here it goes anyway.
I was just discussing with some friends about the next step in human evolution. I'm told that the human Gene Pool is too large to support random genetic mutations ala X-Men so where to next?

Genetically engineered, Cybernetics or hell, why evolve at all? Whats wrong with us now? Technology will provide our evolution.

But what if it already has?

Genetic engineering is in its infancy but certainly shows potential, there is an entire web-site devoted to the first cybernetically enhanced human (although timid by sci-fi standards). So what are we waiting for.


Make a choice.

Choose your destiny.

For what its worth Stephen Hawkings (the undisputed smartest man in the world) suggested on a radio broadcast that humans must use technology to force ourselves to evolve or we may find we're going to fade away. (Not his words but hey)

Of course he would say that because if we were to genetically engineer ourselves, he probably wouldnt exist (Amusing, huh?)

hells angels

Me not no so i just say normies

JohnK

I voted for Normies. The idea of genetically engineered or cybernetically enhanced people just freaks me out. I just don't like the idea of people being made to order.

Ivan

Originally posted by JohnK
I voted for Normies. The idea of genetically engineered or cybernetically enhanced people just freaks me out. I just don't like the idea of people being made to order.

Not necessarily made to order but like gattaca, you (or the parents) but the best of you.

Cybernetically enhanced does scare me, I have to say. The idea of losing control of my mind or my personality, well just say 'no' comes to mind.

I chose Genetically engineered, the idea of being designed from the ground up to be "Uber", well it just sounds rather appealing.

"Omnipotence, yes... gotta get me some of that."

Not omnipotence but not far from it.


Anti-aging gene, increased immune system, increased strength and speed, increased memory capacity, intelligence, etc. etc.

Alot of these can be achieved by cybernetic enchancements but I think most people are scared by the idea of machines as part of your body.

The way I see it, our population has grown too large to support natural evolution so WE really do HAVE to do SOMETHING!

i_am_dogboy

i wanna be an atari jaguar, that would be cool

Zukustious

I would like cybernetic implants if they were not visible. A hard drive connected to my brain for perfect memory. An interface to a pc via electrodes in my brain.(It's been done) I could go online using my thoughts! Maybe a mobile phone in my head that I could turn off. I could talk to people like that. One of those ports in the back of my head like in the matrix where I could learn huge amounts of information in seconds. But it's have to be a lot smaller, and covered in skin that I could open like a door. Kinda like Data from Star Trek. Multi-spectral sensitive eyes so I could see into the X-Ray and infa-red spectrums. Kind of like Superman. Fusion reactor in my chest so that food is not neccesary. (I'm not sure if I want this one). Maybe a couple of USB ports for printers and the like. I could type up word documents in my head. The Hard drive would have to be pretty damn big, so that I could store a lot of info on it. A camera in my other eye, so that I could record images onto my HDD. MP3 playing software so that I only have to listen to a song once, and never hear it again. That's about it.

xx

Cybernetics is probably the next step. Its being used in medicine today, and artificial vat-grown limbs will be the next big thing. IMO I reckon that some sort of implants into the brain will be next, maybe to enhance memory or perception etc. Either that or full cybernetic limbs. How cool would it be to have a metal arm?
Either which way, I wouldn't be much into the invasive surgery needed to fit these sort of things!
And just on a genetic question - wouldn't it be cool, when we can control heredity, if we could breed feminists and other unpopular types out of the gene pool. I know it sniffs of Eugenics, but hey, the only reason eugenics got a bad name was because of Hitler.

Sarky

Genetics can only take you so far. With cybernetic implants, you could have stronger metal alloy bones, ridiculously faster response times, add brain storage space(for knowledge that will stay there until you choose to delete it) and replace muscle with motors that can increase your strength drastically. Some of these are already in use, after a fashion, and the rest aren't too far off (I understand rats have recently been outfitted with microchips in the brain).

Ideally, people would contain the best genes to make them the best that we can be, then augmented cybernetically.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Ivan
I'm not sure if this is the right board but here it goes anyway.
I was just discussing with some friends about the next step in human evolution. I'm told that the human Gene Pool is too large to support random genetic mutations ala X-Men so where to next?

This part of your arguement was covered ages ago in this thread....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45893

Originally posted by Ivan
Not necessarily made to order but like gattaca, you (or the parents) but the best of you.

<snip>

I chose Genetically engineered, the idea of being designed from the ground up to be "Uber", well it just sounds rather appealing.

<snip>

Anti-aging gene, increased immune system, increased strength and speed, increased memory capacity, intelligence, etc. etc.

The way I see it, our population has grown too large to support natural evolution so WE really do HAVE to do SOMETHING!

Referring to both the quotes I have here, your understanding of evolution seems to be fundamentally flawed.

Evolution does not happen in terms of populations, but ecologies.
Thus evolution is still present and active in the human species.

Ajnag

Augment, Love the machine and all will be well.Id love to get an lan connecter in my arm, every net junky should have one.

Sarky

Which leads to shooting up with freshly downloaded brain patches that program your cybernetic brain implants to trip out.
Providing the system can be reset non-fatally, you're onto a winner...

Zukustious

I know this doesn't have anything to do with implants but it's something regarding strength enhancement.

They've developed these tubes made out of carbon atoms, that expand and contract rapidly. (I think you put an electrical charge through them or something) These tubes have been added in to some astronaut space suits, to enhance the muscle power of the people. The put them where their arm muscles would be, and the aid in lifting objects and what not. Sounds pretty cool.

richindub2

Id hope to be able to genetically engineer my children - make them stronger faster healthier smarter etc. If it makes advances in science / exploration of space etc by humans more likely (but doesnt remove that sense of humanity, ie the way robots in a matrix-esque world would (or however you want to define it) ) surely its a good thing?

Only problem I can see with it is will be it will most likely be prohibatively expensive. When the wealthier people start being able to build their children from the ground up with many advantages I can imagine revolts from the working classes.

Sangre

Originally posted by richindub2
When the wealthier people start being able to build their children from the ground up with many advantages I can imagine revolts from the working classes.

Just one more reason to crush the revolting bums.

HaVoC

If society was to split between the 3

Well the humans would be at the biggest disadvantages but have greater number.

The Cybernetics would very expensive to develop and maintain.

Where as the genetic would also have to spend a lot of money developing genetics but think of the saving 0 health bills increase intelligence ergo the ability to develop better technology then the other 2. The genetics could also go the rout of time machine the specific cast for certain jobs.

Ivan

Originally posted by sykeirl
This part of your arguement was covered ages ago in this thread....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45893




Referring to both the quotes I have here, your understanding of evolution seems to be fundamentally flawed.

Evolution does not happen in terms of populations, but ecologies.
Thus evolution is still present and active in the human species.

Actually evolution does happen in terms of population, as far as I understand it.

I.e. A trait evolves in a single human e.g. ability to fly, or increased brain capacity or whatever you what that is beneficial to the individual.

Because he/she has an advantage over other humans he/she will thrive thus producing more children and spreading the gene, since he/she is more likely to stay alive long enough to have children.

Now in a limited number of people, say 500, this gene could become dominant rather quickly, say 5 - 10 generations, for example.

Now with 6 billion people on the planet, not only is the speed at which a gene becomes inherent in all humans REALLY slow, but almost impossible. As there are rather more non-"enhanced humans" than "enhanced" humans.

Yes, evolution does begin based on ecology, environment etc. but its ability to become widespread and dominant, thus evolving the human race (the topic of conversation) is almost null. Unless it were a gene which allowed an individual to give birth to hundreds of children in one, err...sitting as it were.

That is my understanding of evolution, flawed as it is - it is my own.

p.pete

Evolution is more likely to be based on ecology because as there is a wide variety of ecologies, an adaptation that is advantagous in one ecology could actually be less than useful in another.

This is what would slow down the trait from being universally adopted by the who species. The fact that it is unlikely to be an advancement to the entire human race is in my opinion more to do with it not being in agreement with all ecologies, not just due to the scale of the task because of there being 6mil of us.

LizardKing

That guy Kevin Warwick seems to have some issues also I don't think he can be taken too seriously check this site Kevin Warwick Watch -

I'm going for genetically engineered anyway ww)

GuanYin

Originally posted by Ivan
Actually evolution does happen in terms of population, as far as I understand it.

I.e. A trait evolves in a single human e.g. ability to fly, or increased brain capacity or whatever you what that is beneficial to the individual.

No, actually, you just understand it wrong. Evolution doesn't work like that. The term "random mutation" is very misleading. It doesn't refer to a once off chance random mutation, but rather it is a genetic term describing the nature of the mutation.

Evolution tends to happen on an ecological term and it doesn't happen to just one person or organism who spreads it around.
It occurs due to a random mutation (in terms of base pairs) in the genetic expression of an organism. (ie. usually a single change in the genetic code of a proportion of the organisms within an ecology). If these "mutants" are more successful than the original species, they out-compete and take over.

A good example of how evolution works occured in North England during the industrial revolution. A type of brown finch became easy to pick off for predators as the habitat it lived in became dark with smog and soot. A mutant variety with black flecks in its feathers arose and quickly took over from the brown population (ie. the brown population were all eaten by predators due to poor camouflage, the speckled weren't). Now, this mutation is ecology based, the brown finches in other parts of the country were unaffected as were any brown finches anywhere else in the world . As a footnote, the speckled variety died out again and were replaced by the brown when ecology laws prevented soot and smog. In the human population sickle cell anemia is a good case of how human evolution is still active.

Originally posted by Ivan
Because he/she has an advantage over other humans he/she will thrive thus producing more children and spreading the gene, since he/she is more likely to stay alive long enough to have children.

Now in a limited number of people, say 500, this gene could become dominant rather quickly, say 5 - 10 generations, for example.

What? What advantage? What are you talking about? GEnetics doesn't work like that. Mutations are subtle, you change in a type of enzyme made, or in the way a cell coating is expressed, you don't grow wings or grow super strength.

Even if this was the case, human gestation and fertility rates are not sufficient for a population change in the way you speak.

Originally posted by Ivan

Now with 6 billion people on the planet, not only is the speed at which a gene becomes inherent in all humans REALLY slow, but almost impossible. As there are rather more non-"enhanced humans" than "enhanced" humans.

Yes, evolution does begin based on ecology, environment etc. but its ability to become widespread and dominant, thus evolving the human race (the topic of conversation) is almost null. Unless it were a gene which allowed an individual to give birth to hundreds of children in one, err...sitting as it were.

That is my understanding of evolution, flawed as it is - it is my own.

Ok, apologies if I'm patronising, but you really are arguing blindly here. Its like you learned genetics from X-men comics. To put it simply, genetics just does not work the way you described.

Ivan

Originally posted by sykeirl
No, actually, you just understand it wrong. Evolution doesn't work like that. The term "random mutation" is very misleading. It doesn't refer to a once off chance random mutation, but rather it is a genetic term describing the nature of the mutation.

Evolution tends to happen on an ecological term and it doesn't happen to just one person or organism who spreads it around.
It occurs due to a random mutation (in terms of base pairs) in the genetic expression of an organism. (ie. usually a single change in the genetic code of a proportion of the organisms within an ecology). If these "mutants" are more successful than the original species, they out-compete and take over.

A good example of how evolution works occured in North England during the industrial revolution. A type of brown finch became easy to pick off for predators as the habitat it lived in became dark with smog and soot. A mutant variety with black flecks in its feathers arose and quickly took over from the brown population (ie. the brown population were all eaten by predators due to poor camouflage, the speckled weren't). Now, this mutation is ecology based, the brown finches in other parts of the country were unaffected as were any brown finches anywhere else in the world . As a footnote, the speckled variety died out again and were replaced by the brown when ecology laws prevented soot and smog. In the human population sickle cell anemia is a good case of how human evolution is still active.





What? What advantage? What are you talking about? GEnetics doesn't work like that. Mutations are subtle, you change in a type of enzyme made, or in the way a cell coating is expressed, you don't grow wings or grow super strength.

Even if this was the case, human gestation and fertility rates are not sufficient for a population change in the way you speak.






Ok, apologies if I'm patronising, but you really are arguing blindly here. Its like you learned genetics from X-men comics. To put it simply, genetics just does not work the way you described.

Yes you are patronising, but its ok, I'm a big boy, I can take it.

I resent the fact that you imply I learned genetics from X-Men comics because the way you describe it is actually incredibly similar to the X-Men.

I'll be the first to admit that I didnt go to college to learn about Genetics or Theology or Pyschology or Law or any of these things but I still express an opinion in them, based on the facts I have on hand. Sure you might consider me "arguing" blindly which is fair enough from your perspective, but from mine I'm just wearing blinkers.


These speckled finch of which you speak only became dominant because the original ones were eaten or removed or suffered a disadvantage. I simply used flight/reproduction what as an obviously flawed but very visible subject for this discussion.

If there were to be mutations even on the very small term such as a decrease in anal retentiveness* amongst humans, there would be all those non-anal retentive* humans. And since humans rely more on technology than our instincts/evolution given abilities (excluding of course our intelligence, what I mean is our ability to stand up, our ability to judge distances due to both eyes on the front of the head, coloured vision with reduction in night vision etc. etc.) That being less anal-retentive* would not prove to be any more of an advantage than not. See where I'm going with this?

Insert reduced/increased brain cavity, or whatever the hell you like (I suggest some amusing word which takes the piss out of others.)

GuanYin

Originally posted by Ivan
Yes you are patronising, but its ok, I'm a big boy, I can take it.

I resent the fact that you imply I learned genetics from X-Men comics because the way you describe it is actually incredibly similar to the X-Men.

Ok, apologies for being patronising but I don't see how I said anything x-men like.

If a mutation occurs, it occurs because we are one step away from it genetically, and rare as it may be, the exact same mutation will occur in several individuals. These mutations happen all the time, several people are born with expressed mutations of some sort every day. However, x-ray vision, wings, ability to control weather and steel fingernails are not things that we are going to gain through natural mutations.

As far as natural selection goes, even if they did occur, there is nothing putting pressure on humans in this way that would cause them to take over. The finch example, showed how a mutant population takes over, but it also shows that it usually only happens in isolated ecologies. Those dark finches would have been easy prey had they left the smogged up forests of north england.

Originally posted by Ivan
These speckled finch of which you speak only became dominant because the original ones were eaten or removed or suffered a disadvantage. I simply used flight/reproduction what as an obviously flawed but very visible subject for this discussion.

But you never gave an example over what would put selection pressure on the mutants. Why would it be an advantage that the rest of us would die out? 500 flying people are not going to out compete 6 billion people ever, unless maybe all our food source suddenly becomes located up very very tall trees and all technology is wiped out.

Originally posted by Ivan
If there were to be mutations even on the very small term such as a decrease in anal retentiveness* amongst humans, there would be all those non-anal retentive* humans. And since humans rely more on technology than our instincts/evolution given abilities (excluding of course our intelligence, what I mean is our ability to stand up, our ability to judge distances due to both eyes on the front of the head, coloured vision with reduction in night vision etc. etc.) That being less anal-retentive* would not prove to be any more of an advantage than not. See where I'm going with this?[/B]

No I don't really see where you are going at all.....

p.pete

would anal retentiveness not be more influenced by environment (correct me thats included in or equivalent to Ecology)?

Ryo Hazuki

Genetics can only take you so far. With cybernetic implants, you could have stronger metal alloy bones

You could grow metal bones instead of calcium bones by altering the genome.

Anything that can be done with cybernetics can be done better by genetic enginering (apart from placing some sort of gun in your arm or other parts).

There is very little limit to genetic engineering, however cybernetics would be limited by our mechanical knowledge, which is reaching a plateau, where it will not get much more advanced.


So genetics wins.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Ryo Hazuki
You could grow metal bones instead of calcium bones by altering the genome.

No you can't.

Not unless you can change a few laws of physics.

Which proteins are these exactly that form metal?

p.pete

Originally posted by Ryo Hazuki
You could grow metal bones instead of calcium bones by altering the genome.

Metal detectors as we know it would be come obsolete. Just think of the negative implications. Gun control would be a total nonsense, shop lifting would be widespread (I'm sure some people might see an upside of this, but those of us who like to pay for things shan't be best pleased by the price increases).

Also I think I heard something one time about bone marrow being important, I wonder what that was all about?

ps. I realise the little metal tags on stuff in shops works on their magnetisation, not just the fact that they are metal.

GuanYin

Originally posted by p.pete
Metal detectors as we know it would be come obsolete. Just think of the negative implications. Gun control would be a total nonsense, shop lifting would be widespread (I'm sure some people might see an upside of this, but those of us who like to pay for things shan't be best pleased by the price increases).

Also I think I heard something one time about bone marrow being important, I wonder what that was all about?

ps. I realise the little metal tags on stuff in shops works on their magnetisation, not just the fact that they are metal.

*sigh*

Ok, the key word here is "organic"

We are organic. Everything that makes us up is organic.

Metals are inorganic. We can not make them, we can't grow them, you can cut and paste the genome in any way you want, its not going to give you any metals.

Implants, we can do, maybe even platings. But noone, anywhere on this planet can "grow" metal bones...

*sheesh*

Jak

I think this should have been posted on CTYI.

Anyhows what exactly are these forces that are driving the need for genetics or cybernetics? Mankind is in fact moving the opposite direction in terms of physical capabilities. Even if these things were possible - such as anti ageing and so on, they will never be made globally available. We have enough population problems as is.

The thread gives the impression of the disillusioned seeking a quick fix to make them godlike. The human body that you currently have can likely be adapted and developed greatly in mental and physical terms ... if you put in some work.