GATTACA is coming.

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:06 pm

If the goal is to reduce human population, starvation is likely to be more effective than tumors which tend to show up after peak reproductive years.

On top of which, being peer reviewed is hardly a demonstration of correctness, only a lack of obvious errors.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 7:50 pm

DeltaV wrote:
MSimon wrote:
DeltaV wrote:Mucking about with DNA is bad news. Sheer arrogance.

If no human alive can predict exactly what will happen with the man-made, binary logic algorithms of Windows, how much less predictable is the long-term, multi-generational behavior of the poorly-understood yet far, far more sophisticated DNA system. What they've been calling "junk" DNA is now seen to be important.
Don't mess with my junk.
Yes. Sexual mating ought to be outlawed at once. Only recreational sex should be allowed. Because you never know what might happen. Humans from time to time pick up stray bits of genetic material from the environment. Who knows where it could lead?
You need to distinguish between simply running the "program" and modifying the "OS kernel".

Have to agree, vanilla reproduction isn't comparable in this sense to laboratory genetic tampering.

That said, you have to start somewhere and maybe there's a way to start with both feet in without jumping into the deep end either. I doubt there'll be many people volunteering. And if they do they can be treated like today's voluntary guinea pigs. Sign waiver paperwork.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:21 pm

DeltaV wrote:
MSimon wrote:
DeltaV wrote:Mucking about with DNA is bad news. Sheer arrogance.

If no human alive can predict exactly what will happen with the man-made, binary logic algorithms of Windows, how much less predictable is the long-term, multi-generational behavior of the poorly-understood yet far, far more sophisticated DNA system. What they've been calling "junk" DNA is now seen to be important.
Don't mess with my junk.
Yes. Sexual mating ought to be outlawed at once. Only recreational sex should be allowed. Because you never know what might happen. Humans from time to time pick up stray bits of genetic material from the environment. Who knows where it could lead?
You need to distinguish between simply running the "program" and modifying the "OS kernel".

The OS kernel is self modifying (personal choice and environmental accident) by "design" now what?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:39 pm

The OS kernel is self modifying (personal choice and environmental accident) by "design" now what?

Yeah and mankind has been purposedly modifying OS kernels of plants, animals and sometimes even humans for millenia...

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Skipjack wrote:
The OS kernel is self modifying (personal choice and environmental accident) by "design" now what?
Yeah and mankind has been purposedly modifying OS kernels of plants, animals and sometimes even humans for millenia...

No. Mankind has been changing the data carried by transferable flash memory, usually unintentionally rather than purposefully.

Not BIOS flash memory or OS kernal algorithms. Until now.

Whatever BIOS/OS changes occurred in the past were part of the "grand program", hence they were well-managed and generally beneficial.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 8:50 pm

No. Mankind has been changing the data carried by transferable flash memory, usually unintentionally rather than purposefully.

Not BIOS flash memory or OS kernal algorithms. Until now.

Bad comparison, not at all making sense in the context.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:35 am

So change to the correct context.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:49 am

So change to the correct context.

There is no correct context for what you said.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:01 pm

DeltaV wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
The OS kernel is self modifying (personal choice and environmental accident) by "design" now what?
Yeah and mankind has been purposedly modifying OS kernels of plants, animals and sometimes even humans for millenia...
No. Mankind has been changing the data carried by transferable flash memory, usually unintentionally rather than purposefully.

Not BIOS flash memory or OS kernal algorithms. Until now.

Whatever BIOS/OS changes occurred in the past were part of the "grand program", hence they were well-managed and generally beneficial.

This is not quite a correct analogy. There are plenty of cases in which decisions made by the "grand program" resulted in termination of a sub program or a failure of a sub program to make a copy, and therefore these modifications were filtered out of the overall process. (Massively parallel processes.)

Only modifications which were beneficial survive the filtering process.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:06 pm

MSimon wrote:
DeltaV wrote:
MSimon wrote: Yes. Sexual mating ought to be outlawed at once. Only recreational sex should be allowed. Because you never know what might happen. Humans from time to time pick up stray bits of genetic material from the environment. Who knows where it could lead?
You need to distinguish between simply running the "program" and modifying the "OS kernel".
The OS kernel is self modifying (personal choice and environmental accident) by "design" now what?

Picking a mate is about the only OS Kernal modifying which occurs. Suffering radiation/chemical/viral damage is not the same thing as "self modifying." It is more accurately described as being "mutation tolerant."

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:08 pm

Skipjack wrote:
The OS kernel is self modifying (personal choice and environmental accident) by "design" now what?
Yeah and mankind has been purposedly modifying OS kernels of plants, animals and sometimes even humans for millenia...

You compare hybridization and animal husbandry with direct genetic manipulation? Sure, if you look at it as doing watch repair with a battleship.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:14 pm

Semantics problem here is e.g. Skip reducing man's gene edits as no different from anything else nature does - "man-made" IE "Artificial" is from cosmic perspective no different from any other instance of manifestation of nature.

But that's not the contention.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:42 am

You compare hybridization and animal husbandry with direct genetic manipulation? Sure, if you look at it as doing watch repair with a battleship.

Ridiculous comparison again. It is in no way different.
All I say is: Corn
But anyway, the die hard critics really dont have any arguments other than their religious believes that somehow this is evil and bad and will result in horrible damage and destruction. The only evidence they can cite for this being science fiction novels and movies.
Yawn!

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:56 am

Skipjack wrote:. . .the die hard critics really dont have any arguments other than their religious believes that somehow this is evil and bad and will result in horrible damage and destruction.

Back when I used to read The Futurist, the die hard critics never resorted to anything remotely resembling a religious argument. I'd be curious to see one of those from a credible source. Rather, the antagonists were urging great caution before loosing genetically manipulated life forms because we do not know what all the consequences are of any given manipulation. Yes, there are huge success stories, but to pretend there is no danger here is foolish in the extreme. If the same gene sequences that makes corn more disease resistant, were to turn a pest feeding on it just as disease resistant, one could easily create a serious problem.

The most severe example of this is obviously with manipulating viruses and bacteria. The US DOD is on record that there are indeed diseases that create symptoms very like a zombie apocalypse, and if one of these were to get out what would you say. . ."oh gee sorry I was wrong"? Wouldn't much matter who was sorry with the whole world dead.

Manipulating genes has awesome possibilities but doing so casually is fraught with greater danger than any technology to date. Castigating those who urge caution as "religious" is looking for trouble. This gate needs a keeper.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:20 am

Yes, there are huge success stories, but to pretend there is no danger here is foolish in the extreme.

Cars are dangerous too, so are guns and coal powerplants... The world is dangerous and new technologies can be abused, but I think that one can say that generally technology has always improved our lives.

If the same gene sequences that makes corn more disease resistant, were to turn a pest feeding on it just as disease resistant, one could easily create a serious problem.

And these things happen in nature all the time! All the time!
Now if your argument was against the whole issue with licensing and patents of seeds, then we are talking. I do take issue with that, since obviously it is impossible to prevent these genetically modified corns to spread and then going after people that have these grow in their fields (often by secondary transfer from a neighbouring farm) is just outright wrong.
Patenting genetic sequences is also something that I take issue with. You can not patent something that already existed and that you merely discovered.
These are the very real issues that I have a problem with. The zombie apocalypse is science fiction.