Science Topic

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Yes. It's not like space is lousy with micrometeoroids, either - even in asteroid belts, they're relatively rare, though obviously more common than their larger counterparts. With proper precautions, they can be effectively neutralized as a problem.

[ShellHead]

Regardless of my self surgery thoughts on trans humanism and h+? I feel that upgrades will be both biological and mechanical but no ones going to get a cell phone put in their head. What they may get is an inbody generator that uses the salt in your bodily fluids to produce electricity or a designer liver that was grown in a lab from their own sells but can process as much toxins as one can consume or even tiny clusters of metal and chemicals injected into the blood that release medication when exposed to radiation. We can improve ourselves far past anything we can imagine and the future will be amazing.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Philophobia

[Taka Nuvia]

Regardless of my self surgery thoughts on trans humanism and h+? I feel that upgrades will be both biological and mechanical but no ones going to get a cell phone put in their head. What they may get is an inbody generator that uses the salt in your bodily fluids to produce electricity or a designer liver that was grown in a lab from their own sells but can process as much toxins as one can consume or even tiny clusters of metal and chemicals injected into the blood that release medication when exposed to radiation. We can improve ourselves far past anything we can imagine and the future will be amazing.

Agreed. However, there will be those who are strongly against it. I mean, just as there are people nowadays who e.g. refuse to get/use a cell phone, there will be those against trans-humanism.Although I am rather curious about when it will become an official thing, and, more important, affordable. And safe, of course. :rolleyes:BTW, is anyone else around here into robots/robotics/mechatronics? *curious*

[Lara White]

I personally am against transhumanism. I am fine with technology, but like Rover said, I want to be able to put down my cell phone when I'm not using it. There's also the major squick factor involved.Now that we've broached the subject of transhumanism without being rule-breaking, what do you guys think we will be capable of in 223X? I happen to be working on a story involving mech- and gen-augs about that time period, and I'm trying to get an idea of what we would be capable of doing.

[Taka Nuvia]

I am not sure whether I'd want to get altered, either, but I'm also interested in tattoos while I don't want one for myself...Well, I am sure/hope that technology will provide a way to overcome disabilities. Bio-mechanic eyes and the like. Although I fear that it might get used primarily for war - you know, super soldiers and whatever, for this seems to be the most important reason for technological development. At least it has been in the past.

[Lara White]

Oh, there's no question that the first thing genetic augmentation will be used for is to create super-soldiers. Militaries tend to have big enough budgets to afford all the cool toys.

[Alex Humva]

Launch loops are pretty cool, but I do have my doubts, as if it's such a great idea someone should of posted to the world governments and/or major space businesses to build it. I guess it could be the incentive just isn't there at the moment. The figures I'm looking at though show it being a pretty massive undertaking, but hey, so would be a space elevator, so w/e. Anything that gets us closer to cheap space travel is a bonus in my book.On transhumanism though, even though I'm not morally inclined either way or somesuch, I'd probably never get modified. I'd have external stuffs, maybe even devices that'd 'plug in' to your body (like, an arm band that sticks a probe into your arm and senses when your muscle is being twitched one way, so it can do a certain command), but anything I can't just take off? No. They'd probably test these things a metric boatload before the FDA or FCC or whoever the **** is in control of transhuman modifications approves them, but even so, machines malfunction too often for my liking. I love machines, but that only makes me all the more aware of their short comings.Same goes for the genetics side of transhumanism; the genetic code is like a massive cosmic recipe book. We can read it, sure, but understand it? I doubt we'll be able to crack all it's secrets for many, many, more decades. We've mapped it, we've done little manipulations, but until we know a lot more I wouldn't get genetic augments. By the time they do have it worked out I'll probably be an old man and on my death bed, so yeah. Not seeing it within my lifetime.TL;DR, I don't trust machines or genetic engineering enough yet, but if you want to go have a professional give you a robotic arm or a doctor give you angel wings, knock yourself out.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Gaius Alex Humvus Augustus

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Genetic modification to give mammals avian body parts would almost certainly never be possible. Now, fiddling with Hox genes to get a second pair of arms, on the other hand...

[Alex Humva]

I'm pretty sure they're eventually figure it enough for some rich eccentric to get his/her angel wings. It'll probably be painful, impractical, and insanely stupid, but rest assured someone will figure it out.A second pair of arms would be cool, though I imagine you'd need to spend several years to develop proper motor control for them. That and it'd create a whole new line of t shirts. K shirts anyone?...Come to think of it, transhumanism would have profound effects even on what seems to be non-factors; like, the clothing industry. More arms, tails, more legs...Actually, a human with four legs, if you go the... eh, how do you describe that? Like, normal torso and all, but two legs coming out on the other side as well, making a sort of { shape, if you flip clock wise on it's side. That would be bloody weird. And bloody impractical. But I'm sure someone would try it.

[Hexann]

What are all the planets?

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

The problem with avian wings on a mammal is that they've got two completely different epidermal derivatives - that is, one has feathers and the other has hair - so the whole thing would end up completely wonky. You'd also have to fiddle around with the Hox genes enough to get an entirely different kind of limb to grow in a place where limbs normally wouldn't grow.This also certainly wouldn't be done to adults; this sort of genetic engineering would certainly have to be done prior to birth.

[Lara White]

Almost assuredly--I happen to be writing a story where the stereotype of rich kids is that they're all athletic super-geniuses because their parents can afford many, many gen-augs. What is this about hox genes, though? Help me out with that.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

Homeobox genes. They play a big part in anatomical development. They've been found in creatures with bilateral symmetry, cnidarians (radial symmetry), fungi (no particular symmetry), and plants (likewise). They are not, as far as we know, present in sponges or protists.

[ShellHead]

Genetic augmentation is already happening, you guys need to keep up. Also Lloyd: the White Wolf you should use the writers topic if you want help with your story.

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

The only instance of genetic augmentation in humans was the trials on SCID patients, and that wasn't entirely successful.Also, if Lloyd wants help with the science aspects of a science-fiction story, the science topic is as good a place as any for that. No, scratch that - it's a better place than most.

[Lara White]

Rover: Ah, thanks.Shell: Genetic augmentation is in its infancy and is almost definitely not going to be doing a notable amount of work on humans for a while. I do look into things I'm writing about. As for why I'm here and not in the Writer's topic, people in this topic, at least the regulars here, seem to have a firmer grasp on science than a normal author, and I prefer as hard Science Fiction as I can possibly get.

[ShellHead]

http://www.genome.gov/10004767http://cardiovascres.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/4/773.fullhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_enhancementhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11466403http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/science_nation/spidersilk.jspEducate yourselves. I seriously found all these mind blowing things in five minutes the only thing holding us back is ethics. We can shoot skin out of a printer on to burn victimes, we can grow limbs and bladders and hearts and throats. We're living in the future. Lloyd: the White Wolf, you can stop being insulting condescending and passive agressive now.

[Sumiki]

I seriously found all these mind blowing things in five minutes the only thing holding us back is ethics. We can shoot skin out of a printer on to burn victimes, we can grow limbs and bladders and hearts and throats. We're living in the future.

I don't quite see how "ethics" holds us back from doing these things.

[ShellHead]

While that was a poor choice of words on my part. Ethics prevents us from using these augmentations on ourselves. The supermice experiment as mentioned in the journal have much potential for abuse and required eugenics to activate the genes needed for the steroid to work for example.Side note; realized I made it confusing. The things after I mentioned "being held back by ethics" are being used and require genetic engineering.

Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead

[Lara White]

[linkses removed to shorten quote]Educate yourselves.I seriously found all these mind blowing things in five minutes the only thing holding us back is ethics. We can shoot skin out of a printer on to burn victimes, we can grow limbs and bladders and hearts and throats. We're living in the future.Lloyd: the White Wolf, you can stop being insulting condescending and passive agressive now.

Impugning our intelligence is passive-agressive. Saying that I don't think we'll be able to achieve any significant amount of gen-augs for a few decades yet and that I am here to get hard science info for my writing is not.I personally think that ethics is something rather important to the human condition--there are a lot of horrible things that would not have been done if the people involved had applied ethics. I cite the Little Albert and Stanford Prison experiments as the most utterly mild of these ethical violations.I am perfectly aware that gene therapy currently exists. That being said, changing genes =/= ultra-humans. Genetics are not Lego Bricks or a blueprint. They are a recipe.

[ShellHead]

[linkses removed to shorten quote]Educate yourselves.I seriously found all these mind blowing things in five minutes the only thing holding us back is ethics. We can shoot skin out of a printer on to burn victimes, we can grow limbs and bladders and hearts and throats. We're living in the future.Lloyd: the White Wolf, you can stop being insulting condescending and passive agressive now.

Impugning our intelligence is passive-agressive. Saying that I don't think we'll be able to achieve any significant amount of gen-augs for a few decades yet and that I am here to get hard science info for my writing is not.I personally think that ethics is something rather important to the human condition--there are a lot of horrible things that would not have been done if the people involved had applied ethics. I cite the Little Albert and Stanford Prison experiments as the most utterly mild of these ethical violations.I am perfectly aware that gene therapy currently exists. That being said, changing genes =/= ultra-humans. Genetics are not Lego Bricks or a blueprint. They are a recipe.

You didn't read any of the journals I linked did you? They made goats that spin spider silk, mice five times stronger then the average mouse, we can grow a human heart from an animal heart.These are all amazing and significant.Also you don't seem to understand the amazing things we learned from the studies you call horrible. Sometimes the end does justify the mean but thats not to say that ethics are useless. They have their place but if the possible gain outweighs the possible risk or harm then shoot for the moon. Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

The only thing matching the description of "genetic augmentation" in humans as defined in this discussion is what I mentioned regarding SCID patients. Likewise, the other treatments mentioned are emergent technologies - they are not fully ready for widespread application.Also, if you're going to demand that others stop being "insulting condescending and passive aggressive", you may want to dismount that high horse you rode in here.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Beardy Spoon

[ShellHead]

The only thing matching the description of "genetic augmentation" as defined in this discussion is what I mentioned regarding SCID patients. Likewise, the other treatments mentioned are emergent technologies - they are not fully ready for widespread application.Also, if you're going to demand that others stop being "insulting condescending and passive aggressive", you may want to dismount that high horse you rode in here.

They took a heart from a sheep, washed it clean of cells, injected it with human cells, and then made it beat. You're telling me they did that without any knowledge of genetics? How'd they get that goat to make spider silk? how do you engineer a mouse to fit your steroid or to prevent aging without genetics?More likely then not the cereal you ate today or the rice you had with dinner is the product of genetic modification. Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead

[Lara White]

You didn't read any of the journals I linked did you? They made goats that spin spider silk, mice five times stronger then the average mouse, we can grow a human heart from an animal heart.These are all amazing and significant.Also you don't seem to understand the amazing things we learned from the studies you call horrible. Sometimes the end does justify the mean but thats not to say that ethics are useless. They have their place but if the possible gain outweighs the possible risk or harm then shoot for the moon.

I tried to read some of them, but they're so thick with jargon that I (who barely passed chemistry) cannot understand what they are trying to say. I work more with general concepts than specifics.I'm also going to call shenanigans on "washing a heart clean of cells." A heart is cells.That being said, I am aware that we can grow organs, and that does play a part in my story (specifically, reviving cryonics patients).I also cling very tightly to ethics, because to abandon ethics is to become no better than an animal. We have laws governing war, of all things. Show me one animal that has the Geneva Conventions.

[ShellHead]

You didn't read any of the journals I linked did you? They made goats that spin spider silk, mice five times stronger then the average mouse, we can grow a human heart from an animal heart.These are all amazing and significant.Also you don't seem to understand the amazing things we learned from the studies you call horrible. Sometimes the end does justify the mean but thats not to say that ethics are useless. They have their place but if the possible gain outweighs the possible risk or harm then shoot for the moon.

I tried to read some of them, but they're so thick with jargon that I (who barely passed chemistry) cannot understand what they are trying to say. I work more with general concepts than specifics.I'm also going to call shenanigans on "washing a heart clean of cells." A heart is cells.That being said, I am aware that we can grow organs, and that does play a part in my story (specifically, reviving cryonics patients).I also cling very tightly to ethics, because to abandon ethics is to become no better than an animal. We have laws governing war, of all things. Show me one animal that has the Geneva Conventions.

Don't yell at me if you don't understand them thenhttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/130069/20110404/heart-live-human-laboratory-minnesota-stem-cell.htm^ old BTW, the heart is beating and I believe they want to transfer a lab grown heart into someone soonHumans are animals like any other, we just have the best toys. It is in our nature to produce agreements and laws but this does not change the fact that humans are living creatures capable of self locomotion that need to kill and eat to survive.Edit; replaced with more appropriate link. Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead

[Lara White]

--I'm not yelling. The only time I've used capital letters is at the beginnings of sentences and in proper names.--Thank you for the link. Purged of muscle cells is different from purged of cells entirely, and that article is much more explicatory.--I think we're using two different definitions of animals. I'm talking about a beast that has no conscience and no moral compass, that will do anything to survive and thrive, even at the expense of others. I don't think most humans (save psychopaths) qualify under that definition. You seem to be talking about "anything under Kingdom Animalia." That is different.

[ShellHead]

I never said they melted the entire heart.I am not a philosopher and I use biological definitions.I know what I'm talking about and you should apologize for calling me a cool dude.

Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead

[Lara White]

--Error in communication.--You're talking to a writer. Of course I'm going to use more complex definitions. Hence why I defined what I was talking about.--I never called you a cool dude.Since we seem to be getting off topic, let's get onto another subject: what kind of technological advancements to you guys think we will have by the year 2230?:

[ShellHead]

You, for one, don't need to be a cool dude about it and push your ideas on others. Second, have you not heard of hacking? Bypassing security measures like that is sort of the point. Third, why not just carry it around on a lanyard or in your wallet? There's no more risk there than you already take on a regular basis. Seriously, there's no reason to put it in your hand other than "ohh it's cool!"Fourth, if you are trolling like I'm starting to suspect you are, that could end badly.

Yes you did.I want to see so many things, probably good holograms or fashionable implants the most. Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead

[Eeko]

ShellHead and Lloyd: Please take this arguement to PM. This topic is not the place.

what kind of technological advancements to you guys think we will have by the year 2230?

Honestly, I think 2230 is too far away to tell.Seeing as technological advances are increasing at an almost exponential rate, it's possible that what were capable of in 200+ years is literally beyond our comprehension. Edited March 8, 2012 by Aibohphobia

[HeavyMetalSunshineSister]

The only thing matching the description of "genetic augmentation" as defined in this discussion is what I mentioned regarding SCID patients. Likewise, the other treatments mentioned are emergent technologies - they are not fully ready for widespread application.Also, if you're going to demand that others stop being "insulting condescending and passive aggressive", you may want to dismount that high horse you rode in here.

They took a heart from a sheep, washed it clean of cells, injected it with human cells, and then made it beat. You're telling me they did that without any knowledge of genetics? How'd they get that goat to make spider silk? how do you engineer a mouse to fit your steroid or to prevent aging without genetics?More likely then not the cereal you ate today or the rice you had with dinner is the product of genetic modification.

I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying.Yes, they have some knowledge of genetics. Nobody is saying that we know nothing of genetics. What we are saying is that we are not yet ready for major genetic modifications of humans.Out of curiosity, I am going to ask of you what has been asked of others in this topic already - namely that you state your level of scientific education and experience.

[ShellHead]

Scientific, self educated through internet/published journals, text books, and small amounts of university, No degree yet but I did go to this training thing for veterinarian services.I have experience building some electric devices but nothing impressive. As far as medical experience, several amateur surgeries preformed on myself.I never said humans were ready for major genetic modifications, I said it was currently possible and it was the future and some amazing stuff is going on. I apologize for the miscommunication.

Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead

[Lara White]

^Hence my changing to another topic.I personally think that a technological Singularity is slightly further off than I've heard it is--after all, people thought flying cars would be common by now, and those that didn't thought the helicopters would replace the family car.@ ShellHead: I'm going to quote my primary resource for physics accuracy in fiction:

How hard did he really work? What sounds more difficult? Reading some science books in your spare time, or studying science or engineering for 5 days a week, every week, for years? What's more difficult? Reading a handful of books for personal enlightenment, or reading textbooks and papers because you have to take grueling three hour long exams and submit a series of fifty page laboratory reports? What's more difficult? Skipping over the boring parts and jumping right to conclusions or abstracts, or knowing that the boring parts are the parts on which you will be tested? I think it's rather arrogant of these people to believe that their intelligence is so immense that they can skim through a handful of books and instantly gain the equivalent of many years of education.

And, more eloquently put:

So you know, university Physics is essentially three years of this discussion among like-minded enthusiasts.Done with supercomputers, access to the textbook collections of five continents and thirty languages.On four hours sleep a night.You're not going to find the loophole these guys missed.

[ShellHead]

While the same thing is going to happen to the singularity that happened to the flying car. A flying car is every single bit possible. We can even build one that can have vertical take off. The problem is it's dangerous, impractical, expensive, and people enjoy their ground cars and theres no real need for flying ones.Computers are going to improve to incredible speeds and be able to do amazing things but I think people will get to a point sooner or later and say "Do we really need this?"Also if that was a knock at my education I'm currently in university.

Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead

[Eeko]

I'm not thinking of a Singularity.Like you said, people thought we'd have more advanced/accessible tech by now. But they couldn't dream of something like an iPhone, or efficient electric cars.I think that the tech we come up with in the next 200 or so years is goind to surprise us. Everyone assumes will have flying cars, or space colonies, but most of these ideas are pulled from the imagination of Sci-Fi writers.Not to say that Sci-Fi is never right, but it's more often right about the little things.

[ShellHead]

Thats the other thing. People are very very good at guessing the future with broad strokes but when it comes down to practical details its almost always so laughable that anyone who got anywhere close to right is held up as prophet.

[Lara White]

--I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. We do, in fact, have flying cars. My point was that people thought everyone would have them. Instead, they're a novelty. People mis-predicted the future, which happens all the time. That's why i think a Singularity is further off than we think.--The phrase "self-educated through internet" strikes fear into my heart. I use that particular phrase to always remind myself that I am not a professional. You sound like you are in a similar situation and therefore I decided to share it with you.@ Aibo: A singularity is the point beyond which we cannot predict the evolution of technology. We've already gone beyond some Singularities with the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, as well as gunpowder. But yes, you are right. Science fiction is wrong more often than it is right.Then again, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea predicted the capabilites of a nuclear submarine.

[ShellHead]

--I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. We do, in fact, have flying cars. My point was that people thought everyone would have them. Instead, they're a novelty. People mis-predicted the future, which happens all the time. That's why i think a Singularity is further off than we think.--The phrase "self-educated through internet" strikes fear into my heart. I use that particular phrase to always remind myself that I am not a professional. You sound like you are in a similar situation and therefore I decided to share it with you.@ Aibo: A singularity is the point beyond which we cannot predict the evolution of technology. We've already gone beyond some Singularities with the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, as well as gunpowder. But yes, you are right. Science fiction is wrong more often than it is right.Then again, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea predicted the capabilites of a nuclear submarine.

I'm saying I don't think the singularity will ever happen because its impractical. We aren't on some kind of run away train (Okay maybe a little) engineers still have to design and build and maintain everything.I'm not self educated through the internet, I'm self educated using text books and actual academic journals (I liked you to some of my favorites) PLUS my very minor university education so far. I never claimed to be a professional I dsaid to know what I know about a very few subjects close to my heart. Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead

[Eeko]

Thats the other thing. People are very very good at guessing the future with broad strokes but when it comes down to practical details its almost always so laughable that anyone who got anywhere close to right is held up as prophet.

I'd have to disagree.30-50 years ago, everyone assumed we'd be in the space race until we reached the edges of the solar system. The figured that since the space race was hugely popular at the time, that it would still be huge now.I don't think anyone would have guessed that the current race of making smaller and faster electronics would be the leading tech race.

@ Aibo: A singularity is the point beyond which we cannot predict the evolution of technology. We've already gone beyond some Singularities with the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, as well as gunpowder. But yes, you are right. Science fiction is wrong more often than it is right.Then again, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea predicted the capabilites of a nuclear submarine.

Ah, my mistake. I thought Singularity was the point at which tech can't progress any further.That is why Jules Verne is among my favorite Science Fiction authors. He takes a very logical approach, and keeps it specific.

[ShellHead]

I'd have to disagree.30-50 years ago, everyone assumed we'd be in the space race until we reached the edges of the solar system. The figured that since the space race was hugely popular at the time, that it would still be huge now.I don't think anyone would have guessed that the current race of making smaller and faster electronics would be the leading tech race.

I mean even broader then that but I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. I'm saying we celebrate anyone who gets even the basic idea of what we're doing right.For example people say this, http://3.bp.blogspot...or+the+road.jpg (post cards from the year 2000, 1911) predicted drive ins and fast food.The basic, basic concept is there but everything else is off. Edited March 8, 2012 by ShellHead