NationStates Jolt Archive

This is simply mind boggeling. This isnt fantasy or something theoretical, this is now.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601900.html

Yeah, it's pretty kickass. Mail-order synthetic slaves are on the way. :)

This is simply mind boggeling. This isnt fantasy or something theoretical, this is now.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601900.html

Kudos to you. *bows*

I'm not sure which I find more awe-inspiring right now: this development or the fact that the Blue Brain project is apparently thinking (which means it could become conscious once it's reached a sufficient scale). Either way, this is a very exciting time in science; huge barriers pretty much everywhere are being battered down and there's a whole new world of discovery opening up right before our eyes.

Exciting times, exciting times...I can't even begin to imagine the potential these discoveries will have in an applied setting.

the day it can give me fur and a tail and add a hundred years to my lifespan without giving me cancer that will shorten it instead is probably still decades if not a close to a century away. to far to do ME any whole lot of good. and dicey for anyone already born and alive.

but it IS interesting.

frivolus comercial uses outside of the labratory are probably pretty far fetched for the immediate future as well.

but cosmetic 'surgical' aplication of recombinant life form tecnology, i have no doubt, will likely become someday possible.

i don't WANT cloned 'slaves' or cloned 'armies'. but governments, many of them, powerful and otherwise, probably will. whether or not they get them is another matter. hopefully some method of keeping a better reign on them then we have now will have been devised and implimented by then.

=^^=
.../\...

I for one bow to our new synthetic overlords.

the day it can give me fur and a tail and add a hundred years to my lifespan without giving me cancer that will shorten it instead is probably still decades if not a close to a century away. to far to do ME any whole lot of good. and dicey for anyone already born and alive.

Century? Maybe twenty years, give or take (and the earlier technologies like quantum computers arrive, the shorter the time...those things can crunch in hours data that would take an eternity on conventional machines, which is exactly what in silico simulations of complex molecues require) and from there the sky's the limit. This field and its relatives are moving forward so quickly that they've literally exploded in size over the past five years or so; the sheer amount of discovery going on is staggering, especially when you consider the discovery of DNA itself is barely a half-century old.

I'd say, commercially speaking, we're in this field's equivalent of the 1950's in computer science; the tools and equipment in the field are very new, and the language of the field is in its infancy. However, it's soon going to take off and in a short while the computer (or, in this case, genetic engineering/synthetic genomics), will be in pretty much every household. That doesn't mean there won't be speed bumps; the computer industry's had its share of downturns, roadblocks, corporate failures, and difficulties, and so will genomics.

I was going to call this topic, Is God just a dude who got the recipe before we did? But its too cool of a discovery and i didnt want another one of those threads here.

I was going to call this topic, Is God just a dude who got the recipe before we did? But its too cool of a discovery and i didnt want another one of those threads here.

Undoubtedly, that will be a question this field will raise. The more interesting question, of course, is what place synthetic life has in the religious cosmologies of the world's major belief system.

These are questions for another time and place, however. Sometimes it's best simply to celebrate the discovery itself...it's truly a beautiful thought that mankind is now capable of creating and controlling the essence of life itself. Of course, with this beauty comes considerable responsibility; I would go so far as to say synthetic biology is to date the most promising and most risky development in human history.

i don't WANT cloned 'slaves' or cloned 'armies'.

Ever had slaves? You'll like it, trust me. :)

Century? Maybe twenty years, give or take (and the earlier technologies like quantum computers arrive, the shorter the time...those things can crunch in hours data that would take an eternity on conventional machines, which is exactly what in silico simulations of complex molecues require) and from there the sky's the limit. This field and its relatives are moving forward so quickly that they've literally exploded in size over the past five years or so; the sheer amount of discovery going on is staggering, especially when you consider the discovery of DNA itself is barely a half-century old.

I'd say, commercially speaking, we're in this field's equivalent of the 1950's in computer science; the tools and equipment in the field are very new, and the language of the field is in its infancy. However, it's soon going to take off and in a short while the computer (or, in this case, genetic engineering/synthetic genomics), will be in pretty much every household. That doesn't mean there won't be speed bumps; the computer industry's had its share of downturns, roadblocks, corporate failures, and difficulties, and so will genomics.

i didn't mean to imply denial of the unfolding of dramatic outcomes within the timefraim you're suggesting. i was rather refuring specificly to one particular potential set of desirable outcomes.

there is also the context of the larger picture all this is going on in the fraim of. which i don't think this is going to directly override.

lafferty did write an interesting speculative peice about suriviving conditions we are currently creating which might be collectively suicidal to our present life form.

it was called "incased in ancient rind". and of course there was a humorous element to it. this was also written several decades ago. not that many, but a few.

=^^=
.../\...

What about old life forms?

...velociraptors? (Because dodos are just too plain looking).

Ever had slaves? You'll like it, trust me. :)

Problem is, slaves have a nasty habit of rebelling...especially when the slaves are superior to their masters. Of course, I'm good at knowing which way the wind's blowing, so if you see me posting about how much I love and admire our synthetic servants, or start proudly boasting about my disdain for "naturals" or "biologicals"...it's probably a good time to start watching your synthetic slave a little more closely than usual.

Problem is, slaves have a nasty habit of rebelling...especially when the slaves are superior to their masters. Of course, I'm good at knowing which way the wind's blowing, so if you see me posting about how much I love and admire our synthetic servants, or start proudly boasting about my disdain for "naturals" or "biologicals"...it's probably a good time to start watching your synthetic slave a little more closely than usual.

The key is convincing them that they're not really slaves. They think they've got it good, but you're paying them the equivalent of $23.14 per year, and getting their best blood for it. It takes some getting used to, but once you're accustomed to having that godlike command, you learn to enjoy it. :p

The key is convincing them that they're not really slaves. They think they've got it good, but you're paying them the equivalent of $23.14 per year, and getting their best blood for it. It takes some getting used to, but once you're accustomed to having that godlike command, you learn to enjoy it. :p

Yeah, that's true, but then I realize that the synths can not only give my all kinds of kickass abilities but also single-handedly assault Fort Knox and, well, it's a hard sell to give up that kind of deal for unpaid domestic servants. Maybe I should sell my loyalty on Ebay in a decade or two.

The key is convincing them that they're not really slaves. They think they've got it good, but you're paying them the equivalent of $23.14 per year, and getting their best blood for it. It takes some getting used to, but once you're accustomed to having that godlike command, you learn to enjoy it. :p

actually it doesn't have to be even that usurous and miserely. just give them credit cards and football games. then convince them the use of credit (which really IS indenture) is a form of freedom. oh and of course destract them with compitition to keep them from realizing this, and pretty soon you come pretty close to defining the current state of what is currently and popularly called capitolsim. thypified by competing to try and impress each other by indenturing themselves for their houses and automobiles.

(a bit off the subject of synthetic genomes, designer kids and pets, but a not so minor detail i can just about never pass up such a golden and obvious opportunity, especially since someone else raised it, to point out!)

=^^=
.../\...

It will be curious to see how objections to this play themselves out, whether on environmental, health or moral grounds.

The only viable objection is: we don't know what the effects will be.

Yet that has never really stopped us before.

Interesting times, I'd like me some synthetic body if only to keep my brain going so I can see how this all pans out.

The only viable objection is: we don't know what the effects will be.

Yet that has never really stopped us before.

That's always been one of my strongest reasons for opposing most bans or restrictions on any field of research; it's going to happen whether we want it or not, and I'd prefer this kind of work be performed by transparent and open scientific research firms/institutions that are generally interested in the public good than being performed by far less scrupulous groups that are more interested in using it as a weapon.

You just can't stop scientific progress...unless, perhaps, you wipe out mankind. And even then something else will eventually take up the torch, so to speak. The hallmark of intelligence is curiosity.

Interesting times, I'd like me some synthetic body if only to keep my brain going so I can see how this all pans out.

precisely my own origenal propisition, or the major part of my intention of it, as well. (and while we're at it, it might also be fun, at least to me, to have a reasonably attractive but completely unique and origeonal appearance as well).

=^^=
.../\...

precisely my own origenal propisition, or the major part of my intention of it, as well. (and while we're at it, it might also be fun, at least to me, to have a reasonably attractive but completely unique and origeonal appearance as well).

=^^=
.../\...

We'll make an organic narrow gauge railway life form for you as well :)

EDIT: Actually, has this been pointed out already - the toy industry will leap on this, baby unicorns, dragons and etc.

The hallmark of intelligence is curiosity.

Yeah. Well, that and 'blowing yourself up'.

The key is convincing them that they're not really slaves. They think they've got it good, but you're paying them the equivalent of $23.14 per year, and getting their best blood for it. It takes some getting used to, but once you're accustomed to having that godlike command, you learn to enjoy it. :p

Except when us damned synthlibbers start campaigning for equal rights for prefabs.

I for one bow to our new synthetic overlords.
You're on *everybody*'s x-mass list, aren't you? :p

Except when us damned synthlibbers start campaigning for equal rights for prefabs.

You can count me on that list from day one.

You can count me on that list from day one.

Hell yeah. Just gimme a cause to fight for. Rebel without a clue, that's me.

Except when us damned synthlibbers start campaigning for equal rights for prefabs.

What kind of crazy newspeak is this?

This is simply mind boggeling. This isnt fantasy or something theoretical, this is now.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601900.html
This isn't really anything new, we've been making artificial DNA for years, including artificial chromosomes (eg: Yeast Artificial Chromosome, for one). There are commercially available ones or you can make your own. We can already make most types of cells express just about whatever we like, as long as it already exists somewhere. The BIG breakthrough will come when we can reverse engineer fully custom, specific and function-fitted proteins into DNA, being able to simultaneously customise expression levels, activity etc. We are a long way from this.

Many scientists say the threat has been overblown. Venter notes that his synthetic genomes are spiked with special genes that make the microbes dependent on a rare nutrient not available in nature. And Pierce, of DuPont, says the company's bugs are too spoiled to survive outdoors. "They are designed to grow in a cosseted environment with very high food levels," Pierce said. "You throw this guy out on the ground, he just can't compete. He's toast."
Spoken like true industry stooges :rolleyes:

You can count me on that list from day one.

Pfft. Lop off a bit of temporal lobe here, little amygdala there, and you've got a perfectly good programmable humanoid zombie to do your yardwork, with no question of 'rights' involved. That's the ticket. :)

EDIT: Actually, has this been pointed out already - the toy industry will leap on this, baby unicorns, dragons and etc.

They're for lightweights. What you need is one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor
A 22 foot long high speed predator which kicks its prey to death with its nine inch claws. Plus it has feathers, which are quite funky.
I wonder if I could teach it to recognise creationists, and snigger condescendingly at them...

In before synthetic prostitutes/sex slaves.

At last, my dreams of becoming a bird-creature will be realized.

They're for lightweights. What you need is one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor
A 22 foot long high speed predator which kicks its prey to death with its nine inch claws. Plus it has feathers, which are quite funky.
I wonder if I could teach it to recognise creationists, and snigger condescendingly at them...

I'm not sure how many doting parents would buy their child a utahraptor for Christmas. It's probably the 'predator which kicks its prey to death with its nine inch claws' part that would bother them (plus the price and availability issues - if you thought it was bad trying to buy a Furby, imagine trying to buy a dinosaur!).

Of course my parents would have bought me one without hesitation, but let's not get into my emotionally devastating childhood for the time being.

In before synthetic prostitutes/sex slaves.

Aw...

At last, my dreams of becoming a bird-creature will be realized.

Eh, no.

Creating new life forms != turning fully grown humans into chimeras.

They're for lightweights. What you need is one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor
A 22 foot long high speed predator which kicks its prey to death with its nine inch claws. Plus it has feathers, which are quite funky.
I wonder if I could teach it to recognise creationists, and snigger condescendingly at them...
*Wonders whether to point out that that dinosaur would have been [re-]"created" rather than naturally evolved...*

I'm not sure how many doting parents would buy their child a utahraptor for Christmas. It's probably the 'predator which kicks its prey to death with its nine inch claws' part that would bother them

Wussy health and safety rules. No reason why a lethal flesh eating monster can't be a perfectly good toy for a child. Besides I was (as usual) thinking of me - to hell with the kids, I want a utahraptor!

*Wonders whether to point out that that dinosaur would have been [re-]"created" rather than naturally evolved...*

Yeah, created by humans. Choke on that, God!

Eh, no.

Creating new life forms != turning fully grown humans into chimeras.

But if the introduced, engineered DNA can, as the article claims, take over a cell and become its new brain, a body could be completely reshaped.

Granted, "coding" such would probably require centuries upon centuries of brilliant geneticists engineering it..

Oh well. I'll settle for some talons and feathers.

Synthetic bacteria to eat up toxic waste to clean soil, or radiation, or even to store carbon. Neat.

Synthetic bacteria to eat up toxic waste to clean soil, or radiation, or even to store carbon. Neat.
Or to escape, possibly mutate, and eat up non-waste materials...

Good, I want my space-whales.

But if the introduced, engineered DNA can, as the article claims, take over a cell and become its new brain, a body could be completely reshaped.

But then you have different sets of cells disagreeing on what the body should look like, wouldn't that be like giving yourself cancer?

with no disrespect to the washington post intended, i'm curious as to why i'm seeing no obvious reference to this at nature.com? or am i looking right at it and not recognizing what i'm seeing?

=^^=
.../\...

But if the introduced, engineered DNA can, as the article claims, take over a cell and become its new brain, a body could be completely reshaped.

Granted, "coding" such would probably require centuries upon centuries of brilliant geneticists engineering it..
And they'd have to make sure that all your DNA was totally replaced with the new DNA at more or less the same time.
Or to escape, possibly mutate, and eat up non-waste materials...

If only we had some kind of chemicals that killed bacteria. Some sort of 'antibiotics'.

If only we had some kind of chemicals that killed bacteria. Some sort of 'antibiotics'.

And if only bacteria didnt develop immunities to said antibiotics.

And if only bacteria didnt develop immunities to said antibiotics.

Good thing we have more than one type :)

What about old life forms?

...velociraptors? (Because dodos are just too plain looking).

New or old, it doesn't matter. They are going to destroy us. *nod*

We're fucked. But it'll be a hell of a show. :)

New or old, it doesn't matter. They are going to destroy us. *nod*

We're fucked. But it'll be a hell of a show. :)

Death by dodo?

Good, I want my space-whales.



But then you have different sets of cells disagreeing on what the body should look like, wouldn't that be like giving yourself cancer?It would be like a democracy.:p

Death by dodo?

Better than death by dildo

And they'd have to make sure that all your DNA was totally replaced with the new DNA at more or less the same time.



That would be tricky.

Alright, as long as we're looking into the distant medical future, maybe they could grow me an ideal body and transplant my brain into it.

That would be tricky.

Alright, as long as we're looking into the distant medical future, maybe they could grow me an ideal body and transplant my brain into it.

Why just not transplant your mind into a better brain while at it?

Or neural patterns... (I'm a romantic who believe in the existence of souls :p)

Death by dodo?

It sounds bad when you put it like that.

Death by dodo?

Carnivorous Dodos that will breed with penguins to create carnivorous penguins.

Carnivorous Dodos that will breed with penguins to create carnivorous penguins.

I, for one, welcome our Human-eating Avian Mafia Overlords!

I like the potential of this technology, however, furries will abuse it. I suggest a worldwide purge. It's the only way to be sure.

I like the potential of this technology, however, furries will abuse it. I suggest a worldwide purge. It's the only way to be sure.

What the hell is wrong with furries? I will never understand this hatred of furries.

Furries, while admittedly somewhat ODD, are far from the worst sexual oddity. Furries are, after all, consenting adults. They're just in to something you might not be.

To be frank, I would like cat ears and a cat tail myself. That'd be awesome.

(And no, I'm not a furry, unless you call being able to be attracted to the anime-ish humans with animal features like cat ears and tails a furry.)

What the hell is wrong with furries? I will never understand this hatred of furries.

Furries, while admittedly somewhat ODD, are far from the worst sexual oddity. Furries are, after all, consenting adults. They're just in to something you might not be.

To be frank, I would like cat ears and a cat tail myself. That'd be awesome.

(And no, I'm not a furry, unless you call being able to be attracted to the anime-ish humans with animal features like cat ears and tails a furry.)

You are a furry.

Run away!!! It's a furry on the loose!

You are a furry.

Well fine then. Label me however you wish.

Well fine then. Label me however you wish.

You are a self-admitted furry. I didn't label you.

I like the potential of this technology, however, furries will abuse it. I suggest a worldwide purge. It's the only way to be sure.

Furries have their fursuits, they're satisfied.

You are a self-admitted furry. I didn't label you.

Yes you did and no I'm not. I said that I can find women in animes who have a few animal features like cat ears and cat tails as attractive. I said nothing about finding an animal with a few human features attractive. (I don't.) I then said that if you CALL THAT BEING A FURRY then I'm a furry, but I wouldn't call it that.

Yes you did and no I'm not. I said that I can find women in animes who have a few animal features like cat ears and cat tails as attractive. I said nothing about finding an animal with a few human features attractive. (I don't.) I then said that if you CALL THAT BEING A FURRY then I'm a furry, but I wouldn't call it that.

Ok, what about a person who looked normal in every way impart from had fur instead of skin?

A furry is someone who self-identifies as an anthropomorphic animal. Sexualization does not necessarily play a factor.

A furry is someone who self-identifies as an anthropomorphic animal. Sexualization does not necessarily play a factor.

I do find it amusing that they mainly seem to identify as the 'cool' animals, wolves and cats and the like. Though maybe I just don't pay enough attention to furry subculture.

I do find it amusing that they mainly seem to identify as the 'cool' animals, wolves and cats and the like. Though maybe I just don't pay enough attention to furry subculture.

No, that's pretty much it. The only "non-cool" animal I can think of that appears in furry subculture often is the skunk, and that information is old and either second or third hand.

Ok, what about a person who looked normal in every way impart from had fur instead of skin?

I don't think I'd be all that interested. Besides, there'd be too much hair in your mouth whenever you kissed them somewhere other than their lips.

Ok, what about a person who looked normal in every way impart from had fur instead of skin?

They'd look like the world's laziest werewolf.

Ok, what about a person who looked normal in every way impart from had fur instead of skin?

Fur would be a very useful adaptation in northern climates, for now atleast.

Fur would be a very useful adaptation in northern climates, for now atleast.

Isn't that what clothes are for? I mean they're easier to wash and you'd need a hell of a lot of shampoo.. Not to mention clegnuts!:eek:

Isn't that what clothes are for? I mean they're easier to wash and you'd need a hell of a lot of shampoo.. Not to mention clegnuts!:eek:

And you can take them off when it's warm.

Yes you did and no I'm not. I said that I can find women in animes who have a few animal features like cat ears and cat tails as attractive. I said nothing about finding an animal with a few human features attractive. (I don't.) I then said that if you CALL THAT BEING A FURRY then I'm a furry, but I wouldn't call it that.

Right... :eek:







...internet weirdos, I tell ya, they're multiplying. :D

Problem is, slaves have a nasty habit of rebelling...especially when the slaves are superior to their masters.
We could genetically engineer that out of them.

Wonderful!

Now how long before they use a technique like this one to destroy the human species?

Wonderful!

Now how long before they use a technique like this one to destroy the human species?

We can use a technique like this to ensure it never happens. :)

We can use a technique like this to ensure it never happens. :)

How, exactly? Other than through pre-emptive mass suicide?

How, exactly? Other than through pre-emptive mass suicide?

I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But I would assume that if you can create life that can destroy humanity, you can also alter humanity, or create other life for that matter, that can destroy the life that is destroying humanity.

Unless you mean this in a trans humanist sense. In that case I'm not really sure it's an issue.

Ok, what about a person who looked normal in every way impart from had fur instead of skin?

You mean an Italian?

I do find it amusing that they mainly seem to identify as the 'cool' animals, wolves and cats and the like. Though maybe I just don't pay enough attention to furry subculture.

Cats are cool? Tell me that when mine is done plastering my floor with hairballs. :|

But I've seen furries from all across the animal spectrum. There are a few species that vastly outnumber the others, by far, but I've seen bees, robots, seagulls, spiders, cows, ferrets, and a host of others.

I don't know, I'm not a scientist. But I would assume that if you can create life that can destroy humanity, you can also alter humanity, or create other life for that matter, that can destroy the life that is destroying humanity.

I don't think it's possible to program a cell to destroy whatever life happens to be capable of destroying humans. It would have to be reactive, not preventive, because the range of possibilities is so wide... and that means that at best we will be in a perpetual struggle to keep up with the newest artificial pathogens, and if they're designed to, say, have a really long incubation period, they could cause a hell of a lot of damage before they're stopped.

Hell, we can't even deal with natural pathogens like HIV. Imagine something intentionally designed for mass slaughter. It's not a pretty picture.

Cats are cool? Tell me that when mine is done plastering my floor with hairballs. :|

But I've seen furries from all across the animal spectrum. There are a few species that vastly outnumber the others, by far, but I've seen bees, robots, seagulls, spiders, cows, ferrets, and a host of others.

I didn't know robots were animals. Then again, they're fucking furries, it's fairly difficult to question someone who gives head to guys in fox costumes.

I don't think it's possible to program a cell to destroy whatever life happens to be capable of destroying humans. It would have to be reactive, not preventive, because the range of possibilities is so wide... and that means that at best we will be in a perpetual struggle to keep up with the newest artificial pathogens, and if they're designed to, say, have a really long incubation period, they could cause a hell of a lot of damage before they're stopped.

Hell, we can't even deal with natural pathogens like HIV. Imagine something intentionally designed for mass slaughter. It's not a pretty picture.

I'm not so sure. Who knows what the future in the industry will bring?

I didn't know robots were animals. Then again, they're fucking furries, it's fairly difficult to question someone who gives head to guys in fox costumes.

The robot in question is in the shape of an anthropomorphic animal. The reason I included it on the list is because they identify as furry, even if the character is synthetic.

And fursuiters make up a small percentage of furries. People who use their fursuits for that kind of activity make up an even smaller percentage.

I don't think it's possible to program a cell to destroy whatever life happens to be capable of destroying humans. It would have to be reactive, not preventive, because the range of possibilities is so wide... and that means that at best we will be in a perpetual struggle to keep up with the newest artificial pathogens, and if they're designed to, say, have a really long incubation period, they could cause a hell of a lot of damage before they're stopped.

Hell, we can't even deal with natural pathogens like HIV. Imagine something intentionally designed for mass slaughter. It's not a pretty picture.

Picking the single fastest evolving thing in the history of the entire planet really doesn't help your argument.

Picking the single fastest evolving thing in the history of the entire planet really doesn't help your argument.

What's your point? Our theoretical bio-terrorists could design their pathogen in the same way, or even better. After all, nature doesn't do anything intentionally, and doesn't select for the mass killing of humans... its capacities in this regard are far inferior.

The robot in question is in the shape of an anthropomorphic animal. The reason I included it on the list is because they identify as furry, even if the character is synthetic.

And fursuiters make up a small percentage of furries. People who use their fursuits for that kind of activity make up an even smaller percentage.

All of my information on furries is based on The Shining and 4chan, you've just increased my knowledge on the subject tenfold.

Nature's better at killing people than anything else.

Right now. With technology like this, that will change.

What's your point? Our theoretical bio-terrorists could design their pathogen in the same way, or even better. After all, nature doesn't do anything intentionally, and doesn't select for the mass killing of humans... its capacities in this regard are far inferior.

Nature's better at killing people than anything else.

Right now. With technology like this, that will change.

No, all that will change is that nature will get even better at killing people.

No, all that will change is that nature will get even better at killing people.

Do you have an actual point to make?

Who knows what the future in the industry will bring?

History does. Unless one is expecting a sudden outbreak of utopian peace, one need only follow the technological development of weapons of war.

History does. Unless one is expecting a sudden outbreak of utopian peace, one need only follow the technological development of weapons of war.

It's more likely for these technologies to become commercially viable and widespread before they are used for war, not to mention that the kinds of uses these weapons would presumably have are not only in the realm of WMDs but are also outlawed under the Geneva Convention.

However, the risk would still be pretty big.

History does. Unless one is expecting a sudden outbreak of utopian peace, one need only follow the technological development of weapons of war.
History has also shown that no call for boundaries for technology has been able to ultimately stop inevitable advancements. Even if there is a massive ethical debate over this, does anyone honestly think it'll stop it from happening?

It's more likely for these technologies to become commercially viable and widespread before they are used for war

No country would ever use them for war. Such a use would make nuclear weapons look like playthings.

The far bigger danger is from a terrorist group with access to the requisite expertise.

History has also shown that no call for boundaries for technology has been able to ultimately stop inevitable advancements.

That's true. If we're doomed, we're doomed whatever we do.

No country would ever use them for war. Such a use would make nuclear weapons look like playthings.

The far bigger danger is from a terrorist group with access to the requisite expertise.

That's exactly my concern. I don't think it would be easy for a terrorist group to keep up with the technology or research new synthetic organisms on their own, but since it's likely these technologies and their products will become increasingly inexpensive as they mature and develop, they will pose at least some danger for a long time.

The good news, at least, is that it may be easier to control synthetic organisms than it is to control their natural counterparts.

No country would ever use them for war. Such a use would make nuclear weapons look like playthings.
Never say never ;)

I don't think it would be easy for a terrorist group to keep up with the technology or research new synthetic organisms on their own,

The technology will be out there, and once it is it won't be easy to stop. My understanding is that this kind of work doesn't require the kind of massive resource investment involved in, say, constructing nuclear weaponry.

The good news, at least, is that it may be easier to control synthetic organisms than it is to control their natural counterparts.

Why?

It's more likely for these technologies to become commercially viable and widespread before they are used for war


These are not mutually exclusive outcomes, of course. At any rate, war is a commercially viable and profitable business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor).


...not to mention that the kinds of uses these weapons would presumably have are not only in the realm of WMDs but are also outlawed under the Geneva Convention.


But waterboarding isn't torture. What's your point?

These are not mutually exclusive outcomes, of course. At any rate, war is a commercially viable and profitable business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor).

Yeah, that's true.

But waterboarding isn't torture. What's your point?

This is the kind of violation that gets your country's ass handed to it; if you use biological weapons, you're not going to be around long enough to see their effects.

This is the kind of violation that gets your country's ass handed to it; if you use biological weapons, you're not going to be around long enough to see their effects.

Sure, if one's country is some backwards Third World terrorist haven or such. But a superpower?

Violation of the United Nations Charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Iraq), specifically of the prohibition against unauthorized military activity, is also supposed to result in getting "your country's ass handed to it," but when the only possible ass hander is the one doing the violating...

Sure, if one's country is some backwards Third World terrorist haven or such. But a superpower?

Violation of the United Nations Charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Iraq), specifically of the prohibition against unauthorized military activity, is also supposed to result in getting "your country's ass handed to it," but when the only possible ass hander is the one doing the violating...

Biological weapons are way, way more serious than anything else a country could possibly do besides use a nuclear weapon. Any country, superpower or not, that is proven to have used them will suffer.

Biological weapons are way, way more serious than anything else a country could possibly do besides use a nuclear weapon. Any country, superpower or not, that is proven to have used them will suffer.

If yo can download new DNA structures off of the internet, good luck finding the source of the attack.

No, that's pretty much it. The only "non-cool" animal I can think of that appears in furry subculture often is the skunk, and that information is old and either second or third hand.

Sheep are (apparently?) not unheard of - and I'm not sure anyone actually finds sheep cool. I think that's probably a lamb (thus, fertility symbol?) thing.

That's exactly my concern. I don't think it would be easy for a terrorist group to keep up with the technology or research new synthetic organisms on their own, but since it's likely these technologies and their products will become increasingly inexpensive as they mature and develop, they will pose at least some danger for a long time.

The good news, at least, is that it may be easier to control synthetic organisms than it is to control their natural counterparts.

If we can tailor-make synthetic DNA, it should be possible to build a kind of 'security system' for people to add into their 'program' - that would do things like protecting against poisoning, various pathogens... maybe even things like radiation...

If we can tailor-make synthetic DNA, it should be possible to build a kind of 'security system' for people to add into their 'program' - that would do things like protecting against poisoning, various pathogens... maybe even things like radiation...

That's very true; the number of potential benefits is one of the main reasons why I feel the risk is worth it. Virtually anything that is influenced by genetics will be affected by this in ways we can't even imagine now. Perhaps our genetic code will simply become another part of us to customize and shape as we desire; imagination is literally the limit when it comes to designing new and varied applications for synthetic biology.

I would say generally that terrorists and rogue states aren't going to be able to keep up in the "arms race" that might be inspired by these technologies, so the chance of a major incident is really small. It would be less than the atomic bomb, that's for sure; you can design new ways to stop synthetic organisms or their effects, but there is nothing currently in existence that can stop a massive nuclear warhead from laying waste to a target and killing virtually everything in it.

No country would ever use them for war. Such a use would make nuclear weapons look like playthings.

The far bigger danger is from a terrorist group with access to the requisite expertise.

Nobody, in the entire known history of the world, has invented a weapon so unpleasant that no country was prepared to use it. You are right, though - terrorists are the real concern since they are far less likely to be held to account for their actions.

Nobody, in the entire known history of the world, has invented a weapon so unpleasant that no country was prepared to use it.

What does "prepared to use it" mean?

At most I could see a country holding such a weapon as a deterrent. But what a deterrent--the mutually-assured destruction isn't even as indirect as it is with nukes. If you use it, it will kill you as well as your enemies.

If we can tailor-make synthetic DNA, it should be possible to build a kind of 'security system' for people to add into their 'program' - that would do things like protecting against poisoning, various pathogens... maybe even things like radiation...

Maybe. We may make broad strides in protecting ourselves from the still-dangerous diseases with which we are already familiar.

Of course, when we all die from the carefully-designed synthetic pathogen that we didn't notice until it was too late, that progress may seem somewhat abstract.

What does "prepared to use it" mean?

At most I could see a country holding such a weapon as a deterrent. But what a deterrent--the mutually-assured destruction isn't even as indirect as it is with nukes. If you use it, it will kill you as well as your enemies.

Umm... I suppose another way of putting it would be: "willing to use it".

And if you, like me, can remember the Cold War, then you can remember a time when the 'mutually assured destruction' thing was somewhat less than reassuring.