Bio technology

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by webwizard333
How they controlled the rats is the scary part. Giving them pleasure and pain signals based on their actions. Think of whta humans will do with that ability, probably not world domination, but if you think drugs are addictive, try pure pleasure stimulations. You'll find the people will lose touch with relaity and die from conditions such as starvation (easily overrided). But that has less to do with biotechnology (depending on your definition).

It was interest that they were planning to use them is human rescue in disasters like earthquakes. They had camera mounted on them and they "steered" remotely.

I'll take the neural interface... I could drop ten pounds.

"They'll plug me back in and I won't remember a ******* thing"

Cipher

[Wulažg]

But on the plus side you could post on Entmoot any time you get bored(school)

[afro-elf]

Two words. Trial and error. We cannot yet predict, because our model is not accurate enough.

I misunderstood your sentence. I thought you were implying that it was impossible to ever locate a gene under any circumstance

So has electricity. Not many toaster ovens until recently. However I don't particularly consider "breeding" to fall under the umbrella of bio-tech as the appelation is currently used. Selective breedng programs do not involve direct manipulation of genetic material.

Biotechnology in the normal usage refers to engineered solutions involving overt or covert manipulation of genetic material.

Just because you and others prefer the "vulgar argot" in the use of the word biotechnology does not negate the "technical" definition.


All you have done is just basically said I don't like the technical use of the word so I'll replace it with definitions I prefer to make biotech seem "different" that it is.

To follow along with your analogies
A sail boat harnesses the use of the wind. With jets we create our own thrust. Its just a similar idea but with forces of modern technology applied to it.

The definitions that I mentioned above were culled from biotech sources which were explaining what biotech was. Direct genetic manipulation is just one aspect of it.

[afro-elf]

So has electricity. Not many toaster ovens until recently

So. Just because these are new things does not mean that Faraday (sp) didn't use electricity.

No, they are the products of selective breeding, which I might add, was accomplished through centuries of trial and error.

as mentioned above selective breeding is bio-tech and it did produce the desired results after many years. What took ages before is just reduced in time. And trial and error is how things proceed until you get it right THEN can make predictions.


I don't think anyone here is saying that it an exact science yet.

a

Utilization of natural process hardly qualifies as biotechnology. If It's no more biotechnology than fermentation, or using tannin from oak leaves to harden leather. It's akin to saying using lightning spawned fire is in the same class as running an AC motor on transmitted current.

i think my response to using wind power applies here we are using a natural process for our own purposes.

telomerase "bursting" by all current predictions needs to be done early in life in order to have any anti-aging benefits

there are other anti aging prospects beside just the use of telomores such as increasing superoxide dismutase

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Just because you and others prefer the "vulgar argot" in the use of the word biotechnology does not negate the "technical" definition.

True enough. However, "warfare", for example, covers quite a broad spectrum, but it's helpful to know if we are discussing armored tanks and helicopters, or cavalry and pikes.

All you have done is just basically said I don't like the technical use of the word so I'll replace it with definitions I prefer to make biotech seem "different" that it is.

Yes, I'm fussy like that

To follow along with your analogies
A sail boat harnesses the use of the wind. With jets we create our own thrust. Its just a similar idea but with forces of modern technology applied to it.

Err, I'm not sure you are following my analogy in a straight line. Modern powered vessels are a different technology from 5 masted clippers. They involve several orders of advances, not to mantion they incorporate technologies that have come after they were last in use. Like nuclear or fossil feul power.

Jets are again another level of technology. Aereonautics. But look! they have the same root! Nautical. Certainly they are descended from each other, you can rank them in a historical or heirarchical order, but to imply that they are the same level of technology is rather misleading.

The definitions that I mentioned above were culled from biotech sources which were explaining what biotech was. Direct genetic manipulation is just one aspect of it.

Yes those are examples of technology involving biological organisms. I suppose you could say carpentry is a form of biotechnology, because it involves the use of wood.
However when people say biotechnology, and begin to discuss things like ethical implications, it's generally presumed that they are talking about genetic engineering. Perhaps we should have just stuck to that term to avoid confusion.

[afro-elf]

you can rank them in a historical or heirarchical order, but to imply that they are the same level of technology is rather misleading.

true i concur wholeheartedly

[Blackheart]

So. Just because these are new things does not mean that Faraday (sp) didn't use electricity.

Yep. We've been directly or indirectly using electricity (and magnitism) perhaps as far back as ancient egypt (first known dry cell)

However, I still think it's misleading to imply that it's the same level of technology as a transistor.

as mentioned above selective breeding is bio-tech and it did produce the desired results after many years. What took ages before is just reduced in time. And trial and error is how things proceed until you get it right THEN can make predictions.

It's a biotechnology, but it's not "bio-tech". But then that's the problem with buzzwords. So we can just agree that it's not genetic engineering. The difference is that selective breeding does occur over an extended period of time. It limits the impact of problems that develop.

Genetic engineering on the other hand, is several orders of magnitude above selective breeding, and it's right up there with course corrections for asteroids and breeder reactors on the list of things I'd rather not see done by trial and error.

I don't think anyone here is saying that it an exact science yet.

Nope. I don't think we are likely to disagree on that. But I do think there is a disagreement on the importance and likelyhood of the implications of that statement.

i think my response to using wind power applies here we are using a natural process for our own purposes.

Fair enough, I answered it in the previous post, I would have condensed them, but I got tricked too

there are other anti aging prospects beside just the use of telomores such as increasing superoxide dismutase

Oh yes, there are. I'm just saying that telomerase bursting isn't going to do any of US any good. I do have doubts about the ability of anti-oxidants to repair existing damage to information in the strands though. It certainly is worthy of further investigation however.

[Cirdan]

How did it ever become called biotechnology anyway. It's weak. Geneticists... you no what part of biology they operate in. Biotechnology sounds like they are working on organic computers or something. Why worry about levels and degrees of the topic and get back to the topic.

Yes, Blackheart you ARE picky that way. I'd yhink I was an imposter otherwise. Hey, I like that im- poster.

So, is eugenics ethical if it is the only way to save the human race and repopulate the world with the fading natural species we love (I'll miss orange roughy!)

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan

Yes, Blackheart you ARE picky that way. I'd yhink I was an imposter otherwise. Hey, I like that im- poster.

So, is eugenics ethical if it is the only way to save the human race and repopulate the world with the fading natural species we love (I'll miss orange roughy!)

Define ethical

If it was the ONLY way to save the human race, I'd imagine we screwed up somewhere pretty badly along the way....

However as for repopulation, it's problematic. In order to produce a viable population, you need a fair amount of genetic diversity. Unless we discover some way to reproduce that diversity, a bunch of cloned tigers aren't going to do much good

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart

If it was the ONLY way to save the human race, I'd imagine we screwed up somewhere pretty badly along the way....

I wonder if the collective intellegence can continue to overcome some sort of Machiavellan ultimatum in the face of unmistakeable trends toward outstriping our ability to adapt. Are we screwing up badly now? I have a hard time with this one as I see progressively divergent extremes in our adaptability and ingenuity and our wanton disregard of serious problems on the horizon. I doubt anything catastrophic is happening soon, but maybe in my lifetime or my son's. Some have speculated that extended space colonization or extreme environmental stess might trigger the dormant physiological selection forces on Homo Sapien.

[Wayfarer]

I have this to say:

The danger factor of any emerging technology is roughly proportional to the numnber of suspense novels that utilize it.

I recently read a (pretty good) book called Mount Dragon, which revolved around, of all things, influenza. Some scientists, in trying to cure the flu, produce a severely lethal variant. It's pretty scary to think that something lit that could happen.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


I wonder if the collective intellegence can continue to overcome some sort of Machiavellan ultimatum in the face of unmistakeable trends toward outstriping our ability to adapt. Are we screwing up badly now? I have a hard time with this one as I see progressively divergent extremes in our adaptability and ingenuity and our wanton disregard of serious problems on the horizon. I doubt anything catastrophic is happening soon, but maybe in my lifetime or my son's. Some have speculated that extended space colonization or extreme environmental stess might trigger the dormant physiological selection forces on Homo Sapien.

Actually, it's likely that war is the dominant selector at this time.

And yes, youse guys is screwing up badly.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Actually, it's likely that war is the dominant selector at this time.

And yes, youse guys is screwing up badly.

And poverty, and AIDS, and influenza...

Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they ain't there. It's always possible that another strain of influenza or pox will come along a decimate a few of the less hardy individuals. And competition for resources, while not as ... vigorous... is still happening on a regular basis. Don't forget, there IS a world out there that is NON-WESTERN. Selection factors effect them all the time.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


And poverty, and AIDS, and influenza...

Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they ain't there. It's always possible that another strain of influenza or pox will come along a decimate a few of the less hardy individuals. And competition for resources, while not as ... vigorous... is still happening on a regular basis. Don't forget, there IS a world out there that is NON-WESTERN. Selection factors effect them all the time.

Disease, poverty and war go hand in hand. Especially in the Non-Western world, where pushbutton 4 day wars are still science fiction.

The conflicts in the non western world are one of the largest sources of the poverty and disease. Starvation and disease kill far more people than bullets, or swords, they always have, and likely will do so for a long time.

War is hell, always has been, and when it gets sanitized to the point where it isn't, then we'll have to think up a new name for it. It spreads new strains of diseases, disrupts social patterns, destroys stable cultural insitutions, decimates the population (especially the "working" population), removes land from agricultural production, promotes consrcription of men and food supplies, and incidentially, kills people directly and indirectly involved in it. Whether it's "tribal" conflict or conflict on a nationalist/ethnic scale, I'd say it's definately the biggest selector.

War is all about competition for resources, in the broadest sense.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart
War is all about competition for resources, in the broadest sense.

Bit of a reductionist arguement isn't it? I hardly think that war is being used just as a means for access to resources anymore.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Bit of a reductionist arguement isn't it? I hardly think that war is being used just as a means for access to resources anymore.

The Gulf War?

*slips in big pool of oil*

The Vietnam war was about rubber (w/ The French in first).

hehe, rubber

The scope and origins of war a varied.

Civil wars and border disputes are symptoms of othe problems. War causes problems, sure, but problems like hunger and poverty certainly cause wars as well.

Usually wars are about money and power.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan

Usually wars are about money and power.

Pffft.

I KNOW that. I meant that it's no longer the sole cause.

[Wayfarer]

Name another cause then, ]: )

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Name another cause then, ]: )

umm, power and money?

[Wayfarer]

Thank you simon bar-sinister.