Scientists make synthetic life

Maybe the virus wasn't the best example, but simple organisms such as bacteria will definitely be some of the first synthetically unique constructions which will have a specialized role such as medicinal delivery or combative purposes, or to deal with a specific problem in the environment.

In a perfect environment these would stay in the lab until we knew just about everything there is to know in risks of mutation, ecological impact etc. But as these synthetically unique organisms become known for the potential they have, corporations/governments that fund these laboratories are going to want to start putting them to practical use ASAP and that means that we probably won't know all the risks beforehand.
 
On the other side of the equation, nanobots and artificial neural networks are getting better; we also realize we can teach some animals very complex levels of reasoning, we didn't know they could reach. Thus, there are so many possibilities, that cloned human slaves shouldn't be needed.

Here's one example for evolutionary redundancy and inefficiency (0:00 ~ 1:00):
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tos50Wx41p4"]YouTube- Inside Natures Giants Episode 4 The Giraffe Part 3/5 HD[/ame]
Compare with large software products, developed over time, with changing major goals, but using the same platforms without redesign. Granted, redundancy occurs; it would be surprising if it didn't.
 
Last edited:
NeverAmI said:
Maybe the virus wasn't the best example, but simple organisms such as bacteria will definitely be some of the first synthetically unique constructions which will have a specialized role such as medicinal delivery or combative purposes, or to deal with a specific problem in the environment.

In a perfect environment these would stay in the lab until we knew just about everything there is to know in risks of mutation, ecological impact etc. But as these synthetically unique organisms become known for the potential they have, corporations/governments that fund these laboratories are going to want to start putting them to practical use ASAP and that means that we probably won't know all the risks beforehand.
Click to expand...
Exactly, nothing to refute here.
Once money is involved its like brains go out the window :(.

As far as medicine is concerned, unless its somewhere thats NOT the US, I cant see it being funded as it'd be expensive technology and they wouldn't want to pay for it even if the cases were desperate.
More civilized places however ;) wouldn't probably allow human use for a good decade and then only desperate people would opt for it I'd bet.
 
DoveAlexa said:
Exactly, nothing to refute here.
Once money is involved its like brains go out the window :(.

As far as medicine is concerned, unless its somewhere thats NOT the US, I cant see it being funded as it'd be expensive technology and they wouldn't want to pay for it even if the cases were desperate.
More civilized places however ;) wouldn't probably allow human use for a good decade and then only desperate people would opt for it I'd bet.
Click to expand...


The scariest part is the self-replication which can get out of hand so even if it wasn't 'supposed' to go to humans it still could have potential, or ecologically it could just terrorize everything.

It's not the science itself that is bad, nor even the moral implications, but rather the process in which we discover, learn, and utilize it.
 
NeverAmI said:
The scariest part is the self-replication which can get out of hand so even if it wasn't 'supposed' to go to humans it still could have potential, or ecologically it could just terrorize everything.

It's not the science itself that is bad, nor even the moral implications, but rather the process in which we discover, learn, and utilize it.
Click to expand...
Can't learn if we don't make mistakes, but god, we really don't want to make any.
 
NeverAmI said:
They say there is a bunch of "Junk" in our DNA. I don't believe that for a second, I am surprised that anyone does.
Click to expand...

it's not exactly junk, it's unexpressed dna - when dna is copied into rna and before it is translated into proteins, parts of the sequence are cut out (introns), and the rest are bonded together to form a shorter chain (exons). exons are the only genes that are expressed - thing is, they only make up something like 1% of the dna we have.

nobody knows exactly why the rest is there, though one theory is out that says it serves an evolutionary advantage; more genes = more chances for mutations. although it could just be that the extra genes are only expressed under certain, very rare conditions, like when you have a lot of titanium in your bloodstream =P
 
May said:
it's not exactly junk, it's unexpressed dna - when dna is copied into rna and before it is translated into proteins, parts of the sequence are cut out (introns), and the rest are bonded together to form a shorter chain (exons). exons are the only genes that are expressed - thing is, they only make up something like 1% of the dna we have.

nobody knows exactly why the rest is there, though one theory is out that says it serves an evolutionary advantage; more genes = more chances for mutations. although it could just be that the extra genes are only expressed under certain, very rare conditions, like when you have a lot of titanium in your bloodstream =P
Click to expand...



OOOOH you know your stuff! *Steals May's brain*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top