http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/
What do you think? Good or bad?
Very positive article...
http://open.salon.com/blog/doug_socks/2010/06/09/synthetic_life_the_thrid_revolution
Less positive...
http://www.livescience.com/culture/Is-Synthetic-Life-Dangerous-100525.html
I think that it could truly revolutionize the way we live, and really transform our everyday way of wrecking the environment, and instead put us in harmony with nature. But of course, that will take centuries, many trials, and even more errors, to accomplish.
What we first need to do is lay the foundation by making a set of laws and regulations that govern the research and use of the technology. And make lots of diplomatic agreements and precautions.
What we first need to do is lay the foundation by making a set of laws and regulations that govern the research and use of the technology. And make lots of diplomatic agreements and precautions.
aheuaheua like that would ever happen
Let's start with making human-infecting bacterial diseases specifically designed to be as contagious and harmful as possible 5thgrade;
The positive article seems to mention a ton of developments which may or may not be ever possible; while promising, those that are possible would each probably take decades of development to get anywhere. I especially doubt the practicality of any environmental usage. Negative article merely mentions a lot of "any scientific development is dangerous" stuff.
I think this could lead to a great decrease in the percent of hungry people there are in the world. Artificial food growth. Almost like farmers have been doing for years and "genetically" altering plants to yield greater results. The difference being that this would theoretically be like obtaining root access to that plant, modifying it at the smallest layer. A tree the size of a small pine that yeilds watermelon-sized apples. More efficient farming. No more worrying about harsh winters.
In the long term: Two artificial cells, living, join. Begin replicating. Evolution is slightly, accelerated. Would this creature learn to understand us, how would it act, what would it look like? Could you even call it a "creature"?
Quote from: Mobius135 on April 19, 2012, 09:31:37 PM
I think this could lead to a great decrease in the percent of hungry people there are in the world. Artificial food growth. Almost like farmers have been doing for years and "genetically" altering plants to yield greater results. The difference being that this would theoretically be like obtaining root access to that plant, modifying it at the smallest layer. A tree the size of a small pine that yeilds watermelon-sized apples. More efficient farming. No more worrying about harsh winters.
In the long term: Two artificial cells, living, join. Begin replicating. Evolution is slightly, accelerated. Would this creature learn to understand us, how would it act, what would it look like? Could you even call it a "creature"?
I would argue against genetically modifying plants. I don't believe that the modified plants are really healthy. Sure we may have a lot of food, but we might as well be eating garbage. There was a documentary called Food Inc that had a lot of information regarding the negatives of GM foods. I ate strictly organic for a little bit, and I honestly felt a whole lot better. My sister told me that many GM foods are linked to things such as depression and other psychological disorders. I also had a roommate who swears there was this guy who cured cancer by having his patients follow an intense organic vegetarian diet. I never saw any evidence of that but whatever.
sounds like we're finally coming full circle eh hhe
Quote from: N o t S i d on April 20, 2012, 02:03:52 PM
I would argue against genetically modifying plants. I don't believe that the modified plants are really healthy. Sure we may have a lot of food, but we might as well be eating garbage. There was a documentary called Food Inc that had a lot of information regarding the negatives of GM foods. I ate strictly organic for a little bit, and I honestly felt a whole lot better. My sister told me that many GM foods are linked to things such as depression and other psychological disorders. I also had a roommate who swears there was this guy who cured cancer by having his patients follow an intense organic vegetarian diet. I never saw any evidence of that but whatever.
i read a book where they tried this and it helped the kid but then the kid died anyway lol. it was some author who wrote vacation books wrote it about his kid
what makes life artificial? if it's living and existing and evolving in perpetuity, i would argue it is no different than me and you in basis. but, the fact that is may not be dna based and or organic, if the latter is even possible, than it would be an entirely different strain of lifeforms and proves that there are many ways and configurations into which something can become and consist. it's all very profound, but i am not sure how significant, really.
Quote from: N o t S i d on April 20, 2012, 02:03:52 PM
I would argue against genetically modifying plants. I don't believe that the modified plants are really healthy. Sure we may have a lot of food, but we might as well be eating garbage. There was a documentary called Food Inc that had a lot of information regarding the negatives of GM foods. I ate strictly organic for a little bit, and I honestly felt a whole lot better. My sister told me that many GM foods are linked to things such as depression and other psychological disorders. I also had a roommate who swears there was this guy who cured cancer by having his patients follow an intense organic vegetarian diet. I never saw any evidence of that but whatever.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/placebo%20effect
it's pretty unlikely that genetic modification of food really does anything different to us since its genes in no way affects ours. if you wanted to, you could cook a ten pound goat tumor and eat it for dinner and it won't give you cancer because cancer does not work that way. unless these genetically modified plants have a mutation that causes them to generate
poison, it's unlikely to be any more dangerous than natural genetic mutations in organically grown food. it's pretty much just optimizing evolution.
my biggest issue with gmo is the fact that corporations can get patents on genes and abuse the fuck; out of it akudood;
but yes i am fully supportive of creating and modifying life unless it's a direct negative impact on our life. e.g. don't intentionally make diseases that can destroy humanity if one little germ gets loose, but do make disease-resistant corn and glow in the dark dogs and life that can survive on mars and new lifeforms that can benefit us in some way
i never understood anti gmo besides what lawlz said (patents)
i mean, plants naturally go through evolution and humans have been manipulating that since thousands of years ago through selective breeding
i think people are afraid of gmo because it's new and no one knows what it does because no one has any concrete studies that goes beyond 90 years
Quote from: Clucky on April 22, 2012, 12:02:45 AM
i never understood anti gmo besides what lawlz said (patents)
i mean, plants naturally go through evolution and humans have been manipulating that since thousands of years ago through selective breeding
Thousands of years is the point, not overnight in a lab. In co-evolution you can't radically change one aspect while expecting the other not to be dramatically affected. Go eat your plastic corn and see what happens to you.
Quote from: Socks on April 22, 2012, 05:52:22 AM
Thousands of years is the point, not overnight in a lab. In co-evolution you can't radically change one aspect while expecting the other not to be dramatically affected. Go eat your plastic corn and see what happens to you.
i'm pretty sure 'plastic corn' is used in ~80% of all edible products that everyone consumes on the daily basis
and medicines were created in labs because they were more efficient than herbal rememdies n_u
i've never really seen a compelling argument against the use of gmos lol
that corn may be "plastic", but i can see no reason why it'd be metabolized any differently than regular corn is, and just about every major study of gmo vs. non-gmo produce supports that assertion
there's little to no scientific evidence that they're unsafe for human consumption, and like clucky said about 80% of the corn and corn-based products (and everything is corn-based) you consume are already modified anyway
i guess i wouldn't be against labeling of gmo vs. non-gmo foods but there's really no reason to avoid them
My only real concern is that at some point, GMOs will give rise to superpests. myface;
Anyway, what you should be avoiding, if you can, is textbook-evil corporations like Monsanto, but their influence on GMOs is so ubiquitous that doing so is nearly impossible. awdood;
monsanto is my god because of how aggressively sadistic and aggressive they are happydood;
Quote from: Clucky on April 22, 2012, 10:24:53 AM
i'm pretty sure 'plastic corn' is used in ~80% of all edible products that everyone consumes on the daily basis
and medicines were created in labs because they were more efficient than herbal rememdies n_u
i'm pretty sure 80% of the people who consume those things are overweight or obese and will at some point if they are not already suffer from debilitating lifestyle health issues and live a very terrible set of days. you act as if things are peachy. and, huh, i always thought death was the most efficient mechanism nature invented. you're sick? make way for those of us who are not. but hey, what do i know. i'm not the one profiting by the promise to 'make you better' by paying money to prolong your miserable sad life with pills and whatever else procedures you want to have. there are very little cures, which is the holy grail, because it's not really natural or profitable.
also you guys looking for those GREAT arguments and REASONS, how about you grow a spine and use some common sense and think for yourself. i know, radical, but it can happen.
Quote from: Socks on April 23, 2012, 08:05:51 AM
i'm pretty sure 80% of the people who consume those things are overweight or obese and will at some point if they are not already suffer from debilitating lifestyle health issues and live a very terrible set of days. you act as if things are peachy. and, huh, i always thought death was the most efficient mechanism nature invented. you're sick? make way for those of us who are not. but hey, what do i know. i'm not the one profiting by the promise to 'make you better' by paying money to prolong your miserable sad life with pills and whatever else procedures you want to have. there are very little cures, which is the holy grail, because it's not really natural or profitable.
they'd be overweight and obese whether the corn was natural or not because there is absolutely no proven mechanism by which gmo corn could cause obesity any more easily than natural corn could
you might be talking about growth hormones lol
It has the same potential, I just think we should leave things alone.
Quote from: N o t S i d on April 20, 2012, 02:03:52 PM
I would argue against genetically modifying plants. I don't believe that the modified plants are really healthy. Sure we may have a lot of food, but we might as well be eating garbage.
And that I certainly agree with. My theory behind this would be:
Genetically modified foods are bad. They are being fed/bred with chemicals and growth hormones. These just sound terrible for you. It's because mankind is forcing the plant to grow far beyond it's natural means. If we were to synthesize plants at the very smallest level, essentially create our own plant, one not created from any other plants DNA, but written with our own. Then we could be the ones telling it how it is supposed to grow, instead of nature. Synth-Cabbages could have DNA based off the original strands of natural Cabbage, but not from natural ones. They could be "programmed" to grow to four times the size of a natural one, and grow to it without chemicals and hormones.
Or consider this; we clone genetically modified animals like cattle and swine, but they are bred in such a way that they have no consciousness. Complete shells. Would PETA be more likely to step backward, and not see it as inhumane considering these animals are not "alive" per se? Could that lead to cleaner and more consistent food production companies?
I think they tried producing meat in a lab that is supposed to be chemically identical to real life protein but it apparently tastes like shit. Maybe consciousness is really delicious, and adds flavor beyond what we can imagine.
lol they can make meat from shit
Quote from: Socks on April 24, 2012, 04:07:59 PM
I think they tried producing meat in a lab that is supposed to be chemically identical to real life protein but it apparently tastes like shit. Maybe consciousness is really delicious, and adds flavor beyond what we can imagine.
the issue is probably in what the animal eats vs what the grown meat can't possibly ever eat
it's like how alcohol all tastes the same and it's the small impurities that give it flavor. if you can identify the elements that give a good slaughtered steak its taste and put it in the grown meat, it'll be just fine
hell certain soy burgers have shit added that make them have just enough of a meat taste that people will eat them. it can't be that hard to do the same with real meat that lacks a body
Probably, but I believe what is done in a lifetime can't really be replicated in a lab. Maybe one day we will all be sucking pink slime through a straw and eating engineered carcass, ummmm, yummmy. There already is 'meat glue' and other such products which replicate stake and the like, but, even if you cannot consciously distinguish the taste, I am sure your body will not be fooled, and suffer as a result. You can't turn back hundred of thousands of years of conditioning overnight, no matter what the industry may want you to believe.
Quote from: Socks on May 02, 2012, 07:07:40 AM
You can't turn back hundred of thousands of years of conditioning overnight, no matter what the industry may want you to believe.
Guess it's time for a jump in evolution then
Quote from: Mobius135 on May 02, 2012, 09:09:36 AM
Guess it's time for a jump in evolution then
Or a mutation. I think that's what cancer is, maybe it's trying to tell us something. All those people with tumors are really just more evolved. We need to celebrate them.
I'm glad there's a bot printing this ATM.
when you picture corporatoins as Barons and Obama as charlemenge then im ok with monsanto GMOs'
fact: as of may 2017 gmos are still absolutely safe for human consumption and you cannot argue otherwise