How far do you think it could be taken if scientists were given free reign and the funding? What about splicing humans with plants food production genes so we could live from photosynthesis. Use of jelly fish or octopus genes so we emit our own sources of light in the darkness...what's your science fiction view/hope of gene manipulation?

If you hate the idea of gene manipulation at all I understand, I get the dangers and I get that it is impractical and playing god, I'm not making any claims here just discussing if it WERE a perfected science where what would be cool to see?

I think its experimenting supernaturally. But how cool would that actually be? You know. If only that was possible.

Yeah that's the point here it is more of a science fiction thread. if someone knows some of the science behind it, that'd be cool to hear too.

And I know little of science fiction. Just had to read it lol to get a better idea. And impressive.

I think humans may have already been cloned in some underground secret alien facility.

People have been replaced perhaps.

I don't want to alarm anyone.

How familiar are you all with nanotechnology?

Nanotechnology is the science/engineering of manipulating objects at the subatomic level. The engineer of the scientific theory is still in its infancy, but the implications are profound.

Nanotechnology has the potential to change our world and our definition of what it means to be human. You think gene manipulation is something, image a vaccine that could make you in essence 'immortal'. That is the tip of the ice berg.
We're talking a century or so away from this at least of course.
Still nanotech is going to be the future. It's already being applied in construction, and even mass food production.

Nanotechnology is fascinating but sort of creeps me out. The thought of a tiny little (man made) machine inside of me .... eeww.

But they say that eventually with nanotechnology, they will be able to build a human being from the ground up. I don't think so. I really think there is more to sentient life than that.

Just because you have an endless supply of cash, does not mean that the technology is available yet. It's a long, drawn out process, from grant writing to funding, all the way to the end results. Scientific research is not even allowed a fraction of what it actually requires to achieve the type of genetic manipulations that you are describing. What would come out of something like that is an ecosystem for scientists to collaborate with each other as well as the public on shaping future research projects.

I think we are close to cloning a human now. We have already successfully done this with animals however they never seem to live very long and there are complications that arise. There are problems such as pathologies that indicate accelerated aging. Whether that is related to the cloning process is debatable however. It could just be that these clones are "weakened" in some respect. So yes, it’s a matter of fine tuning and your endless grant money would probably help out tremendously.

Is it really supernatural?

Everything in our environment both natural and man made effect our genes now. In fact we are being controlled by our environment. Hell we have prescription pills in our water supply. Would it really be unnatural to modify our own genes to help evolution out, or to protect ourselves from ourselves? lol?

Let me ask this, this is a tough one, that I myself cannot answer.

Lets say there is a group of creatures. Evolution only cares about reproducibility, and survival. Lets say this group of creatures evolves over time based on changes in there environment. Each creature lives or dies based on the roll of the gene dice. Lets say this group starts to work together, and now instead of the individuals who got a bad roll dieing and not reproducing that some kind of social idea crops up that these individuals with bad genes are really prophets from god and are taken care of and allowed to breed. Is that natural?

What is nature? What is natural? Is consciousness really the difference? Can we say that since these creatures decided to help there less fortunate members and allow them to breed that this is against nature, or unnatural?

I think the idea of nature, and what is natural is one of the biggest questions of ethics for modern man.

I don't think there are any easy answers.


One way or the other we are being changed. If we found out that "naturally" we are on a path of destruction and the only way to right it is via "unnatural" genetic manipulations or we face the end of our race, would making those changes be right, or wrong ethically?

I agree. In this case "nature' takes the place of "God" when seen through the eyes of non-believers in a God.

So one has to ask, what is "Nature?"

Nature seems to operate according to a certain programing but yet in a random manner to give rise to different kinds of evolution.

The programing existent in nature is contained in the small world like atoms, cells, elements, genes, DNA, RNA etc.

But the closer you look at the "small world" the more perplexing it gets. Everything effects everything else.

At what point do we stop fearing that we are "playing God" and realize that we are God?

We're already able to pick and choose all these genetic traits of unborn children, it's not like we aren't already playing around with this impossibly advanced stuff. I think it's pretty cool-we redheads are supposedly going to be extinct in 100 years so if other people can make their kids redheads then that's awesome. I say let 'em do whatever they want, it's not like there's any stopping it anyway.

Bushidobillyclub asked:
I’d like to take a stab at this.

First off, the question strikes me as a little bit backward. First you need to define what it is you mean by the word “nature” and then you can start discussing it as a subject. Otherwise, you get disagreements – not because people have different ideas on the subject, but because people use different symbols to refer the same idea (or the complement – people use the same symbol to refer to different ideas.)

Now to define the symbol “natural”: I would say that “nature” is the aggregate of all the stimulus-response (cause-effect, action-reaction) mechanisms we refer to as “physical laws”. In other words, if it involves a cause-effect relationship wherein the same cause always produces the same effect, then it’s “natural”.

And to go off on one of my favorite tangents...

Thus science, to me, is the search for the most natural - i.e. those causes which always result in the same effects. Where I believe science is limited is in assuming that every identical effect always has the exact same identical cause – and the complement to that – the same identical cause will always produce the exact same identical effect.

And that's not to say that this makes science "wrong" in any way. According to it's own starting postulate, it is perfectly right and correct.

It's just to point out that the "identical cause = identical effect" is not the only valid or viable starting postulate.

Your talking about uniformity. The requirement for natural laws to be uniform for scientific observation to be functional. Yes I agree.

Natural, or nature does not need to represent any kind of uniformity. Nature could indeed be chaotic, there could be no laws of nature, now we would not be here wondering about this topic, but its altogether possible that a reality could exist with such a non uniform nature.

Science could not function is such an environment, its not how our world works, but it does not mean it cannot exist.

I agree there are many different definitions for the term nature. In itself without a specific intention it is a fairly useless term.

It can mean the observable properties of a thing, or idea. Which is how you are using it to make your observation about science and the need for uniformity.

It can mean all things material. All things of our reality.

It can mean that which is not man made.

It can mean that which is not synthesized by an intelligence.

Typically nature, or natural refers to a processes that has not had any outside influence from something that is not apart of the original process. In this loosest of contexts many many things fall outside of what would be natural.

I do not so much think to use the word natural is meaningless, so much as wish people would clarify what they mean when they use it.

Most folks use the word loosely most of the time unless its suits there purpose to speak of it specifically.

Your use of cause and effect is actually kind of elementary thinking in regards to science, there does not need to be a relationship between a cause that maps to a single effect that is always the same for science to function, probability and Chaos theory speak to that flexibility of science. A composition function shows how a cause maps on to another cause can have a different effect. Science is what we can determine, whether exactly, probabilistically, statistically, or otherwise any way we have yet to figure.

Every "effect" or outcome (output) does not have to map back to the same "cause" or imput. There does need to exist a relationship however, which I am sure is what you meant. The same effect can have different causes. (But I guess it depends always on how reductionist you want to get with it . . . .)

You always get the mental juices flowing Sky!


Cheers!

Nano medicine would be cool. I think it would live out many peoples dreams in the past of having a better medical force in society. It's fascinating to think about the possibilities.

If I could manipulate my genes, it would be simple. Two things.

Have plaque reduced in veins to increase blood flow to brain.

And increase the amount of nutrients captured during digestion so I wouldn't have to garble down so much food.

That is as high as my aim goes, and this could maybe be done with new technology, if I was more on the path of a yoggi. Let's face it, the human body is still the most awesome machine on the planet. Everything technology wise that we have is just some very small generalization of what the human body already does, and though we have brain farts, our mind still outdoes computers in data processing rates. If only we could utilize that some how. So I don't think that new biological info on genes alone that will be the clutch at first, but rather technology that mimics what the human body, and brain-mind system does, and enhances this natural intelligence. Either way, science is getting pretty damn close to breaking the riddle of organisms.