Notices
Results 1 to 50 of 50
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum

Thread: What about the genetic engineering? May be the end of the human race?

  1. #1 What about the genetic engineering? May be the end of the human race? 
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    So far we have conducted genetic experiments on plants and animals, what will happen when you start experimenting with humans?

    When we will have the first "clone" human?

    When we will have the first human genetically perfected?

    When we will have the first hybrid beings?

    I think that genetic engineering may be the end of the human race as it is now.

    The current races of animals are the result of a slow evolution through millions of years.

    When we have the power to manipulate genetically beings, we can make changes of species in a short time. Generating species evoloción never appear in a natural.

    Much is said about dangers of nuclear , "environmental effects", .. but I did not heard too much of the dangers of genetic engineering.

    I do not think we are so far away from it. And while they may have laws that control it, we all know that "every law has a loophole ..."! "


    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Some research is already being done in this area. Well, maybe not the specific things you mention but more practical/useful things. For example, gene therapy to treat disease: Cystic fibrosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    End of the human race? I really doubt it.

    More likely are greater advances in medication and food provision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    End of the human race? I really doubt it.

    More likely are greater advances in medication and food provision.
    As in all scientific and technological inprovement, will have positive and negative applications.

    Positives: Advances in medicine ... extend human life and improve their quality.

    But what will happen when they start cloning humans or creating new species of virus, animals and humanoids?

    If we have ben able to clon sheeps....we are very near to clon Human....if not already have been cloned
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Proof that cloning will end the human race?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Hey... don't just worry about some futuristic technology to kill us, current society can also create new dangerous viruses. Eg: H5N1, SARS and Nipah virus (these are the 3 most famous incident I know of). These virus seriously kill people (!) and is airborne & contagious and all this happen in just the last 10 years, fortunately it was quick lived but UNFORTUNATELY people don't remember it!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Hey... don't just worry about some futuristic technology to kill us, current society can also create new dangerous viruses. Eg: H5N1, SARS and Nipah virus (these are the 3 most famous incident I know of). These virus seriously kill people (!) and is airborne & contagious and all this happen in just the last 10 years, fortunately it was quick lived but UNFORTUNATELY people don't remember it!
    If you study epidemology for a minut, you would notice that lethality rate is not a way to measure how dangerous the virus is. As we can classify a virus as a living thing, it will still (preprogrammed or not) try to create a stable way to survive, and thus letting people survive. There is no virus (except science fiction) that kills all, and can still spread.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    But it kills people, and that's what *I think* made it 'lethal' (ie: for anyone it is a personal doomsday. Death is your personal doomsday). For example, if you've got bacteria infection: you get sick BUT you can fix yourself with variety of ways like gargling some Listerine, or milk, or snif some steam, or flush infection with alot of water, or drink alot of water, of use alcohol rub or alcohol spray or regular soap or that antibacterial soap... BUT if you have a lethal virus: you'll just experience a terrifying day of your life and just die. -I don't think anyone want to let any 'lethal' virus exist except non-lethal one, and all virus should be non-lethal or they should die... ('lethal' virus should be deal with extreme measure like quarantine, burning all the farm animal, and sanitize everything like it was done for the 3 viruses I mentioned above).

    Not all country has seasonal flu vaccine, so non-lethal common flu virus is safe to stay as long as it only and only cause runny nose.... but don't want one that cause cancer or sore or anything (especially STD).
    Last edited by msafwan; June 28th, 2012 at 09:39 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Proof that cloning will end the human race?
    ...AS WE KNOW NOW !!!!.....BUT COULD BE DIFFERENT !!!....With a lots of DAPIFOs and PALEOICHNEUMs....
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    non-lethal common flu virus is safe to stay as long as it only and only cause runny nose
    If it only causes a runny nose, it ain't flu. Flu is probably the most dangerous of all the contagious diseases (vaccines have taken care of most of the morbidity/mortality of all but a few of the rest). It mutates to new forms every year and there are reservoirs of versions of the disease in widely spread animals - birds and pigs in particular.

    We will have another worldwide epidemic of a flu strain as lethal as the Spanish flu some time - we just don't know when. Nor do we know whether we'll be able to produce a vaccine in time to restrict its spread. Quarantine and travel restrictions won't help very much if it's one of those carried by migratory birds. Though I wouldn't get on a plane or a long bus/train journey during such a time.

    Our most recent encounter with a high death-rate epidemic was SARS. The only thing that saved us that time was that it wasn't easily transmissible. The mortality rate varied from 10% to 20%. With a highly transmissible disease, that would have been catastrophic.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    But it kills people, and that's what *I think* made it 'lethal' (ie: for anyone it is a personal doomsday. Death is your personal doomsday). For example, if you've got bacteria infection: you get sick BUT you can fix yourself with variety of ways like gargling some Listerine, or milk, or snif some steam, or flush infection with alot of water, or drink alot of water, of use alcohol rub or alcohol spray or regular soap or that antibacterial soap... BUT if you have a lethal virus: you'll just experience a terrifying day of your life and just die. -I don't think anyone want to let any 'lethal' virus exist except non-lethal one, and all virus should be non-lethal or they should die... ('lethal' virus should be deal with extreme measure like quarantine, burning all the farm animal, and sanitize everything like it was done for the 3 viruses I mentioned above).

    Not all country has seasonal flu vaccine, so non-lethal common flu virus is safe to stay as long as it only and only cause runny nose.... but don't want one that cause cancer or sore or anything (especially STD).
    The virus is only the begining...is the most easy think.

    But we (humans and existing beings) are here by a long evolution of species during millions of years and because didnīt apear a specie so aggresive to destroy us.

    You can think what will happen if we develop:

    - Lions that are reproduced as fast as rabbits.
    - Deadly venomous mosquitoes
    - Enhanced humans (more intelligent, stronger, ...)

    Its clear that the human race will be not the same.

    and this is not fiction science...it is present... or at least is very near... No mor than 50 years...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Some research is already being done in this area. Well, maybe not the specific things you mention but more practical/useful things. For example, gene therapy to treat disease: Cystic fibrosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Yes...and also some cancers can be treated with preventive medicine genetics (cancer of the breast, colon, ...).

    Teher are alot of good things, but also bad ones !!!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Proof that cloning will end the human race?
    ...AS WE KNOW NOW !!!!.....BUT COULD BE DIFFERENT !!!....With a lots of DAPIFOs and PALEOICHNEUMs....
    Other then shouting, what were you trying to say?

    I was wanting your evidence for the assertion that cloning would be the end of the species Homo sapiens
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Proof that cloning will end the human race?
    ...AS WE KNOW NOW !!!!.....BUT COULD BE DIFFERENT !!!....With a lots of DAPIFOs and PALEOICHNEUMs....
    Other then shouting, what were you trying to say?

    I was wanting your evidence for the assertion that cloning would be the end of the species Homo sapiens
    Instead of a discussion between scientists, seems a dialogue of lawyers ... always asking for evidence (!)

    If they had evidence of something, would not be a discussion would be sufficient to read the wikipedia.

    If do you think there is someting that I am talking that is already know....then please explain it to me or showme were read about.

    We are a forum to brainstorm ideas, or is a class to review books, articles or photographs of evidence?

    Please, let's be serious people and forward looking ... to discuss about what is already evident is not discuss .. is only teach or explain...
    Last edited by dapifo; June 28th, 2012 at 07:18 PM.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    For a disease organism to be dangerous it needs more than lethality. It also needs easy transmitablity and resistence to treatment. The worst plagues we know of were the black death and the influenza pandemic. The measel epidemic amoung native americans after the contact with Europeans was also devastating but poorly documented. The black death killed a quarter of the population of europe. The flu at the time of WWI killed more people than all the bullets fired by both sides. The north American measels epidemic seriously disrupted native american society. BUt none of these came close to killing everyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    Dapifo, science is a methodology for making a assertion, examining evidence to see if the assertion is true, and adjusting the assertion as needed. You provided an assertion, I want to know your evidence for that assertion, provide it so it can be discussed.
    John Galt likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    non-lethal common flu virus is safe to stay as long as it only and only cause runny nose
    If it only causes a runny nose, it ain't flu. Flu is probably the most dangerous of all the contagious diseases (vaccines have taken care of most of the morbidity/mortality of all but a few of the rest). It mutates to new forms every year and there are reservoirs of versions of the disease in widely spread animals - birds and pigs in particular.

    We will have another worldwide epidemic of a flu strain as lethal as the Spanish flu some time - we just don't know when. Nor do we know whether we'll be able to produce a vaccine in time to restrict its spread. Quarantine and travel restrictions won't help very much if it's one of those carried by migratory birds. Though I wouldn't get on a plane or a long bus/train journey during such a time.

    Our most recent encounter with a high death-rate epidemic was SARS. The only thing that saved us that time was that it wasn't easily transmissible. The mortality rate varied from 10% to 20%. With a highly transmissible disease, that would have been catastrophic.
    Quoted from wikipedia.
    The fatality of SARS is less than 1% for people aged 24 or younger, 6% for those 25 to 44, 15% for those 45 to 64, and more than 50% for those over 65.[5] For comparison, the fatality of influenza is usually around 0.6% (primarily among the elderly), but can rise as high as 33% in severe epidemics of new strains.

    Seems to me like mostly immunity deficient people died because of sars.

    Furthermore

    8,422 cases and 916 deaths

    This seems like a very small outbreak still. The common flu indeed kills 1000 times this number yearly. Not even speaking about malaria.

    SARS had a huge advantage still, it has a 10 day incubation period, which is 10 days of wandering about, not knowing your infecting people. I'm still saying, don't look at the death rate about how dangerous a disease is, look at the time the infected still wander about seemingly healthy.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    There is some serious paranoia expressed here, based on real ignorance.

    Humanity is not going to create a new pathogen which will wipe us out. The greater probability is an increased ability, in the future, to prevent disease. For example : it is entirely possible in theory to create a vaccine that will work against all forms of flu, including the ones that have not yet appeared. Our ability to reduce the fatalities from flu will just get better.

    GM of humans is inevitable, but will be targeted at such things as genetic illness, and to improving overall fitness. This technology will increase humanity's ability to survive - not the reverse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    8,422 cases and 916 deaths? That's over 10% mortality!!

    Common flu does kill 1000 times this number every year - from millions of infections.

    In annual influenza epidemics 5-15% of the population are affected with upper respiratory tract infections. Hospitalization and deaths mainly occur in high-risk groups (elderly, chronically ill). Although difficult to assess, these annual epidemics are thought to result in between three and five million cases of severe illness and between 250 000 and 500 000 deaths every year around the world. Most deaths currently associated with influenza in industrialized countries occur among the elderly over 65 years of age.
    Much less is known about the impact of influenza in the developing world. However, influenza outbreaks in the tropics where viral transmission normally continues year-round tend to have high attack and case-fatality rates. For example, during an influenza outbreak in Madagascar in 2002, more than 27 000 cases were reported within three months and 800 deaths occurred despite rapid intervention.
    From WHO | Influenza

    So a serious flu outbreak results in 800 deaths from 27000 cases - less than 3%.

    I had a quick look for CDC data but could only find the standard reports which show Pneumonia and Influenza aggregated.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Despite not much people die, it can make you sick. Lets not underestimate the sickness just because not enough people die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    For a disease organism to be dangerous it needs more than lethality. It also needs easy transmitablity and resistence to treatment. The worst plagues we know of were the black death and the influenza pandemic. The measel epidemic amoung native americans after the contact with Europeans was also devastating but poorly documented. The black death killed a quarter of the population of europe. The flu at the time of WWI killed more people than all the bullets fired by both sides. The north American measels epidemic seriously disrupted native american society. BUt none of these came close to killing everyone.
    When I am talking about "dangerous" I donīt reffer to the possibility of killing...I reffer to the possibility of CHANGING ... a lot of new species will appear... and the current specie of human could be changed for other inproved (or not) some aspects and habilities,...I

    As I said at the begining of the thread...may be the end of the human race AS IT IS NOW !!.. But could subsist other kinds of races, species,...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Dapifo, science is a methodology for making a assertion, examining evidence to see if the assertion is true, and adjusting the assertion as needed. You provided an assertion, I want to know your evidence for that assertion, provide it so it can be discussed.
    Evidence about what?...

    - I think that genetic engineering may be the end of the human race as it is now.?

    Do you need any evidence?... I think that is very clear,.....but if you desagree with this assertion, please, tell me what is your forecast about what will happen when the human being is capable of performing genetic changes to their own DNA.

    I would like to know your opinion (if you have any), and not that there are nothing writed in academic books about this topic.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    non-lethal common flu virus is safe to stay as long as it only and only cause runny nose
    If it only causes a runny nose, it ain't flu. Flu is probably the most dangerous of all the contagious diseases (vaccines have taken care of most of the morbidity/mortality of all but a few of the rest). It mutates to new forms every year and there are reservoirs of versions of the disease in widely spread animals - birds and pigs in particular.

    We will have another worldwide epidemic of a flu strain as lethal as the Spanish flu some time - we just don't know when. Nor do we know whether we'll be able to produce a vaccine in time to restrict its spread. Quarantine and travel restrictions won't help very much if it's one of those carried by migratory birds. Though I wouldn't get on a plane or a long bus/train journey during such a time.

    Our most recent encounter with a high death-rate epidemic was SARS. The only thing that saved us that time was that it wasn't easily transmissible. The mortality rate varied from 10% to 20%. With a highly transmissible disease, that would have been catastrophic.
    Quoted from wikipedia.
    The fatality of SARS is less than 1% for people aged 24 or younger, 6% for those 25 to 44, 15% for those 45 to 64, and more than 50% for those over 65.[5] For comparison, the fatality of influenza is usually around 0.6% (primarily among the elderly), but can rise as high as 33% in severe epidemics of new strains.

    Seems to me like mostly immunity deficient people died because of sars.

    Furthermore

    8,422 cases and 916 deaths

    This seems like a very small outbreak still. The common flu indeed kills 1000 times this number yearly. Not even speaking about malaria.

    SARS had a huge advantage still, it has a 10 day incubation period, which is 10 days of wandering about, not knowing your infecting people. I'm still saying, don't look at the death rate about how dangerous a disease is, look at the time the infected still wander about seemingly healthy.
    OK .. we will be able to cure SARS and other diseases.

    But we will be also able to:

    - Ask parents how they whant them children (girl/man, blond/brown, short/tall,...) and worst (inteligent/stupid, .clever/ or not, ..)...

    ONE QUESTION: When do you consider academically that is (created) a new species? When you can no longer reproduce with the above one?

    OK...Then after several generations...what will happen?....That is my question. Obviously I donīt have evidences...only imagination can help to us.

    When you make an RISK ANALYSIS (if you've ever done any)... you donīt have evidences...you have to forsee !!

    I think that to do RISK ANALYSIS itīs very important in the research projects (!!?)
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Yes, making a risk analysis is an undertaking made by epidemologists, but they have it wrong much to often. Swine flu, and bird flu were blown up out of proportions, as of these epidemologists all agreed on one thing. There is no such thing as overreacting on an outbreak. Well seems like they were wrong, as their fear has infected us all, but their predicted diseases have not.

    My opinion, and i can say it truthfully as i don't fear getting burned for it, as i'm not an epidemologist.

    Chance for a big outbreak per year is about 2,5%, Chance per person to get sick per year is about 30%, Chance for bird flu to actually become a mass outbreak per year is about 0,5%. Chance for swine flu to become a mass outbreak (a deadly one offcourse) per year is about 0,01%, Chance to die when sick of an infective disease per year is about 0,02%.

    Satisfied?
    Last edited by Zwolver; July 1st, 2012 at 04:20 PM.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Yes, making a risk analysis is an undertaking made by epidemologists, but they have it wrong much to often. Swine flu, and bird flu were blown up out of proportions, as of these epidemologists all agreed on one thing. There is no such thing as overreacting on an outbreak. Well seems like they were wrong, as their fear has infected us all, but their predicted diseases have not.

    My opinion, and i can say it truthfully as i don't fear getting burned for it, as i'm not an epidemologist.

    Chance for a big outbreak per year is about 2,5%, Chance per person to get sick per year is about 30%, Chance for bird flu to actually become a mass outbreak per year is about 0,5%. Chance for swine flu to become a mass outbreak (a deadly one offcourse) per year is about 0,01%, Chance to die when sick of an infective disease per year is about 0,02%.

    Satisfied?
    OK all this is very nice...but what will happen if some day somebody develop an virus without antodote....like the computer viris !!!!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,269
    There are already viruses that have no antidotes, HIV for example.

    I think you are asking more of a philosophic question then a biology one (eg "when would the human species, H sapiens sapiens, be considered extinct.")
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Yes, making a risk analysis is an undertaking made by epidemologists, but they have it wrong much to often. Swine flu, and bird flu were blown up out of proportions, as of these epidemologists all agreed on one thing. There is no such thing as overreacting on an outbreak. Well seems like they were wrong, as their fear has infected us all, but their predicted diseases have not.

    My opinion, and i can say it truthfully as i don't fear getting burned for it, as i'm not an epidemologist.

    Chance for a big outbreak per year is about 2,5%, Chance per person to get sick per year is about 30%, Chance for bird flu to actually become a mass outbreak per year is about 0,5%. Chance for swine flu to become a mass outbreak (a deadly one offcourse) per year is about 0,01%, Chance to die when sick of an infective disease per year is about 0,02%.

    Satisfied?
    This view of incident/infection as pure chances can cause carelessness. Mechanism of infection is physical: you will get infected when you are around infectious organism (but whether you got sick or not depend on your health/immune state), and the infection is not a probability game. My point is: you should be pro-actively avoid disease and never assume you could gamble on it, because there's nothing to gamble (lose/win) since its not probability.

    The chance of outbreak is not "2.5%", it actually depend on poulty industry whether they are keeping their livestock clean & healthy from infectious disease.
    ----
    A disease can be eradicated (where chance of infection = "0%") because disease is not a chance game, but physical. Eradication of infectious diseases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by msafwan; July 3rd, 2012 at 02:18 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Actually, the word 'antidote' is incorrect with respect to viruses. Antidotes are for poisons, and only a few. Most poisons have no antidote. Virus disease is sometimes treated with anti-viral drugs - not antidotes. Of course also, sometimes it is possible to inject a vaccine to provide immunity to a viral disease.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    30
    I don't think genetic engineering will ever occur on a large enough scale to change the human race so fundamentally that it becomes a new species.Besides, our nations are very bioethically conscious. There's enough persuasive moral discourse on the topic to prevent any recklessness with that technology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Philo

    Societies change. Over a period of several hundred years, you can expect society's attitudes to gene modification to be quite different. There is no guarantee that conservative views will hold. In time, our descendants may become quite willing to implement substantial genetic change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Philovitist View Post
    I don't think genetic engineering will ever occur on a large enough scale to change the human race so fundamentally that it becomes a new species.Besides, our nations are very bioethically conscious. There's enough persuasive moral discourse on the topic to prevent any recklessness with that technology.
    You are very naive....(possibly too young???)
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Philovitist View Post
    I don't think genetic engineering will ever occur on a large enough scale to change the human race so fundamentally that it becomes a new species.Besides, our nations are very bioethically conscious. There's enough persuasive moral discourse on the topic to prevent any recklessness with that technology.
    You are very naive....(possibly too young???)
    No, i don't think it's naivity. Though i do believe societies change, i don't think we will ever be the opposite as what we were. In history we have done many things, but one of those things is not, slaughtering all our own people. Or Abandoning the wealthy, or abandoning the poor, as they need eachother. Genetic modification will always have bounds, unless it is done by terrorists, or people trying to create instability. It will never become a law though, to abandon the people we are now..
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Ok..I agree with you.

    We allways are afraid to the new thigs (nuclear,...), but genetic is very serious and different !!!

    Now there is the idea of revive ancient animals (mammoths, dinosaurs, ...)...could be good (?)
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    End of the human race? I really doubt it.

    More likely are greater advances in medication and food provision.
    As in all scientific and technological inprovement, will have positive and negative applications.

    Positives: Advances in medicine ... extend human life and improve their quality.

    But what will happen when they start cloning humans or creating new species of virus, animals and humanoids?

    If we have ben able to clon sheeps....we are very near to clon Human....if not already have been cloned
    You make it sound like cloning humans is a bad thing. I fully support it, if only to harvest organs. Among other reasons. Why is this such an apparently uncomprehendingly scary thing to some people?
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Philovitist View Post
    I don't think genetic engineering will ever occur on a large enough scale to change the human race so fundamentally that it becomes a new species.Besides, our nations are very bioethically conscious. There's enough persuasive moral discourse on the topic to prevent any recklessness with that technology.
    You are very naive....(possibly too young???)
    Wow, thanks.No. I have the assumption that the ethical discourse surrounding this issue won't ever dramaticalky change, much as Aristotle's work remains an enduringly significant contribution to ethical discourse despite the time gap.But no, just assume that I'm an idiot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    cloning humans ....................................... if only to harvest organs.
    Try getting that past an ethics committee.

    Or do you you mean 'cloning' human tissue to create organs suitable for implantation?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    cloning humans ....................................... if only to harvest organs.
    Try getting that past an ethics committee.

    Or do you you mean 'cloning' human tissue to create organs suitable for implantation?
    I mean cloning a human body without a brain. This is fairly realistic. Then harvesting everything. Yes, I know they are now growing human tissue and trying to grow organs separately using meshes etc. They grew a human ear on a mouse a while ago. I just think this would be a much better way to do it.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I mean cloning a human body without a brain.
    Apart from the 'ick' factor, that sounds a bit wasteful. Just how many spare fingers and toes and ribs and collarbones and buttocks do we need? (Overlooking how bones, organs, blood vessels and all the rest can grow successfully without a brain conducting that particular orchestra, of course. Add in the interactions between all those hormone producing and regulating functions of the brain that make everything work anyway and it all sounds like too much hard work for too little product and too much waste.)

    Far better to work on something like a universal pancreas or kidney or thyroid gland or liver or eye I'd have thought.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    I don't think it would be wasteful. There is a vast shortage of organs. And we waste food and energy like crazy. Surely it doesn't take that much to feed a cloned body until we dissect it. But I am glad you called it an "ick" factor and didn't launch into a religious right-wrong monologue like people usually do when I mention such topics.

    Growing it without a brain: well, you are right about the hormones etc. Maybe we could just have artificially pumped hormones. Or we could grow the body with the brain stem. That way the body is kept alive and with hormones without being sentient. Take a look at the babies being born with only the brain stem. Very sad, of course. For the parents.

    And I guess I am jumping the gun into science fiction a little, but there have been monkey brain transplants experiments where a successful brain transplant survived for half an hour, being fully conscious of its' new body. A whole body. Imagine taking drugs and drinking and smoking and eating crap until you are 40, then just getting a new body of your choice :P [/OFFTOPIC]
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Maybe we could just have artificially pumped hormones.
    And maybe we could feed these not-quite-human objects real food and water for years and clean up the waste for years (so that we could have functioning, transplantable stomach and bowel material for trauma and cancer patients). And maybe we could ensure the limbs were stressed and exercised appropriately to develop bones, blood vessels and muscles properly. And maybe the hormones could ensure proper development of reproductive organs for infertile people .... and maybe ....

    Whatever we work on will take money, resources and time. Lots of money - which will affect what resources and time are available. Much more sensible to focus on promising techniques and processes for the easiest, the biggest and the most urgent problems.

    Most important of all. Transplants of things like skin are being superseded by more sophisticated processes of developing the patient's own skin production capacities. I'm pretty sure that it won't be long before we develop more along the spray technique so that we can deliver the patient's own skin cells with growth factors to allow really quick, much less surgically invasive/repetitive ways of replacing lost skin. The liver looks to be a good candidate for similar conceptual approaches. My feeling (and it is only a feeling) is that in very few decades time, transplants will become a bit old-fashioned by comparison with truly modern techniques. They'll probably continue on for certain organs or particular circumstances, but the major current uses will be well and truly overtaken by science.

    Ideas like body farming to harvest organs will be a bit of a 1960's scifi-horror film concept.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    [QUOTE=adelady;335293]
    And maybe we could feed these not-quite-human objects real food and water for years and clean up the waste for years
    Well, what I was saying is that food and water is extremely cheap in comparison to what people will pay for these human parts and procedures. We waste so much more on total garbage, surely comparatively it will be not that much work and energy and resources for such a great result. As for muscles, you could just zap them with electricity on an automated routine that will give them plenty of exercise. So while I agree that maybe there wold be better ways to go about organ/ body replacement in the future, the argument that it is a "waste of resources" is moot in comparison to the gain. Both practically and financially. People will pay anything to live longer.

    And by "years" you mean 3 years? A 3 year old organ is good enough for an adult, right? What's the limit? Even if it took 3 years, that's a pretty good turnaround.

    You could also make it prohibitively expensive so that only the 1% could afford it. That way you are sound financially. Morally questionable? Certainly! Would the 1% and companies mind a rats' ass? Not at all!
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    people will pay for these human parts and procedures.
    Much more important is to solve problems that not just patients but medical staff find distressing to deal with. I should point out that my daughter is a nurse in a children's hospital. Having children come in, again and again and again, for years after an initial burn injury, for repeated surgeries to repair scars and grafts and painful therapy for contractures is stressful for everybody. Finding a way to make replacing skin and tendons easier and safer with less and less surgery would be a great boon to many thousands of patients and (even more) medical personnel.

    What you're talking about would take at least a decade to even get started, let alone to have 'saleable' product. The first few experiments would have to have patients survive and hopefully thrive for at least 5 years before moving on to larger scales. How far do you think genetic therapies, personalised medicine, robotic body parts and other current investigations will have moved on by then?

    I still think that transplant as the major mode of organ repair and replacement will be seen as old-fashioned and a bit clunky or clumsy by the middle of this century. Certainly by the second half. Valuable, but only as a transitional step towards what will then be regarded as the best techniques. Surgeons working in areas where transplants are still the only viable technique will be working like mad to get their speciality into the newer, more glamorous mainstream. And save their patients a lifetime of anti-rejection medication.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094


    Completely artificial replacements, then! That will last for 10000 years. With fusion reactors for energy. And possibly laser beams.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Well, no. But I can see the parallel The more we progress science, the more we will start bringing up old movies.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko;335327[IMG
    http://files.sharenator.com/okay_meme_RE_ATTENTION_SHARE_NATION_Amazing_things-s300x272-170761-475.jpg[/IMG]
    Completely artificial replacements, then! That will last for 10000 years. With fusion reactors for energy. And possibly laser beams.
    You are leaving science behind and entering fantasy. No fusion reactor could be made that small. Such an idea is simply magic.

    However, there is the possibility of batteries that use such materials as blood glucose for fuel, which would, in theory, last the life of the patient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko;335327[IMG
    http://files.sharenator.com/okay_meme_RE_ATTENTION_SHARE_NATION_Amazing_things-s300x272-170761-475.jpg[/IMG]
    Completely artificial replacements, then! That will last for 10000 years. With fusion reactors for energy. And possibly laser beams.
    You are leaving science behind and entering fantasy. No fusion reactor could be made that small. Such an idea is simply magic.

    However, there is the possibility of batteries that use such materials as blood glucose for fuel, which would, in theory, last the life of the patient.
    Fusion reactor can not be so small? As far as i know, a fusion reactor smaller then a star can not be made. Still, people are trying to make one the size of an indoor soccer field. Why can't it be made even smaller? The gap between the star and the indoor soccerfield, is WAY bigger then between an indoor soccer field and a thimble.

    Restrictions from molecular size? Well, i thought the higgs boson explained we can have matter, without mass, so why not mass without volume?
    Last edited by Zwolver; July 9th, 2012 at 04:23 AM. Reason: changing mass to matter
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I still think that transplant as the major mode of organ repair and replacement will be seen as old-fashioned and a bit clunky or clumsy by the middle of this century.
    Heard a science/technology item on car radio the other day and I thought of this thread.

    If we're looking for a newish technology that's likely to develop in extraordinary ways in the next few decades, what about 3D copying?

    It may not be much good for complex organs like the eye, but it'd be a great exercise for things like arteries, veins, skin and bones for some joints once we can copy biological tissues. The structures are permanently saved in much the same way as any document or data set. Get your patient's biological substrate into the system, hit copy. Hey presto! Body part on demand. Much more high tech and more manageable than maintaining healthy whole or partial bodies. And no anti-rejection drugs needed.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To Adelady

    You are thinking of 3D printers. Those are great for building scaffolding for body parts. However, the living cells still have to be put in place. Usually this is done with stem cells. Withe the right biochemical cues, they will form into the appropriate tissues. However, the process is neither simple nor cheap, though it may become more so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    process is neither simple nor cheap, though it may become more so.
    Yeah, compared to maintaining a body parts growing facility, this would be a lot simpler and cheaper. I doubt I'll see it, but I reckon a version of it'll be on the way by mid century.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Genetic engineering... Is this possible?
    By jolar in forum Biology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: February 12th, 2012, 12:06 AM
  2. genetic engineering
    By rjc79 in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 6th, 2008, 02:01 AM
  3. Human genetic engineering
    By verzen in forum Biology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 5th, 2008, 05:43 AM
  4. Genetic engineering.
    By chloe-jessica in forum Biology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 29th, 2008, 12:31 AM
  5. Replies: 50
    Last Post: March 28th, 2007, 08:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •